PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Lords Reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons amendments, considered
	Resolved,
	That the Commons do not insist on their Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.—[Siobhain McDonagh.]

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rights of Way (Mechanically Propelled Vehicles)

John Mann: What conclusions she has drawn from the consultation on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way.

Alun Michael: First, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had to go to Luxembourg for a special Agriculture Council meeting, which is why she is not able to be with us this morning. I am pleased to say that there has been a successful outcome, and I have placed copies of her press statement in the Vote Office for the convenience of Members.
	Secondly, it might be convenient for Members if I draw attention to the written statement confirming the three area arrangements for the single farm payment made by my right hon. Friend this morning.
	In response to our consultation on the use of mechanised vehicles on rights of way, we received over 15,000 letters and e-mails, which are being analysed. Views on the main issues are strong but divided. I shall do all that I can to build a consensus on the way forward, but with such strength of opinion it is clear that leadership and action are required from the Government.

John Mann: I am all in favour of strong leadership and action from the Government. A significant number of Members have articulated their views on an early-day motion that I tabled. In the consultation, will the Minister take good note of the fact that many of those who are complaining are doing so about something on which the Government are not consulting? The issue is whether there is unrestricted, unbridled new access to new rights of way, rather than the placing of restrictions on people's perfectly rational and reasonable pastimes. In considering that, will the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is rather a long question. Perhaps this is an Adjournment debate subject.

Alun Michael: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. Many pieces of disinformation have been put around about the consultation. Issues such as whether use by horses 200 years ago should lead to the use of particular tracks by mechanised vehicles are serious, and unnecessary fears have been caused by the sort of disinformation to which my hon. Friend refers. We shall certainly consider all the experience and all the comments that have come in, in trying to design a way forward that is sensible, protects rights of way and protects the interests of all.

Robert Key: Does the Minister agree that no one should accuse either him or those of us who have made representations on behalf of our constituents of acting with haste or being unreasonable? I spent an afternoon with the Southern Counties Off Road club and had a two-hour meeting with the Wiltshire Trail Riders Fellowship, as well as consulting every parish council, before making my representations to the Minister. My conclusion that it is unreasonable to carry on as we are is widely shared.

Alun Michael: I am happy to respond positively to what the hon. Gentleman says. I met representatives of the users of mechanised vehicles a couple of weeks ago after the end of the consultation, as I promised that I would, and I urged them to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. There are many responsible users who do not want to go somewhere that would cause damage, or to damage the interests of others, but there are others who take a different attitude. It is important to engage responsible users, rather than their responding to the sort of disinformation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) referred a few moments ago.

Harry Barnes: The infamous Grimsell lane is in my constituency, and the decision made in that case seems to have extended the legal loopholes that are described in the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Today, I have received a letter from a constituent who refers to eight lanes in the area that are now being extensively used by motorcycles that did not use them in the past. There is also a perverse decision in connection with bridleway 54 at Walton, which I have put in front of my right hon. Friend for his response. We need a situation in which the danger, noise and rutting that has been created by some misuse in the area is controlled.

Alun Michael: I am happy to look at individual examples, and I know that my hon. Friend has taken a considerable interest in the topic over a period of time. It is worth saying that traffic restriction orders can be used. For example, in places such as the Ridgeway where those have not been used in the past, there is now co-operation between local authorities to make use of seasonal restriction orders. We need to get the right response for any particular lane or right of way. I am very pleased that so many Members are engaged in wanting to achieve the right way forward.

Dairy Farming

Adrian Flook: If she will make a statement on the effect of single farm payments on dairy farmers.

Ben Bradshaw: The Government took the decision to include dairy payments in the single farm payment from 2005. As a result of earlier reforms, the dairy sector was running behind those covered in the 2003 reform, and this has made the position more complicated. There will be a net reduction in the support for dairy. Within that, some of the more intensive dairy farmers will receive less than they currently do, and some of the smaller, less intensive farmers will receive more. The eight-year transitional period should give time for dairy and other sectors to adjust.

Adrian Flook: Under the single farm payment, dairy farmers in Somerset who currently get £350 per hectare will receive only £220. Given that they get only 17p per litre for milk that costs them 20p per litre to produce, does the Minister agree that that spells disaster for Somerset's dairy farmers?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I do not. The amount that dairy farmers currently receive depends, of course, on their stock densities. It is not just the flat rate payment that will bring the dairy industry closer to the market, thereby helping it to become more profitable and market oriented, rather than subsidy oriented; the measures that we have introduced—not least the one announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and the adjustments to the areas will prove helpful to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Michael Clapham: A dairy farmer in my constituency whom I met last week farms an area of land 55 per cent. of which is categorised as disadvantaged, yet he has a herd of 170 cows and a thriving business. However, when the new payments are applied he may well receive far less than that received by farmers six miles away, who farm good land. It seems perverse that a man who has built up a sustainable business should lose out because his farm happens to be situated on what is called disadvantaged land. Will my hon. Friend look seriously at how we can help such farmers, and consider an appeals procedure?

Ben Bradshaw: That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a change in the boundaries as originally proposed in February. When my hon. Friend studies them, he will realise that they will help the very dairy farmer he mentions.

David Cameron: During a recent meeting in Witney, the National Farmers Union pointed out to me that because of the different regimes that will exist in Scotland, Wales and England, Scottish and Welsh dairy farmers could buy a market in milk quota. Does the Minister share the NFU's concern that that could lead to an even greater reduction in dairy production in England, and if so, what does he propose to do about it?

Ben Bradshaw: I certainly accept that such a thing is possible. It is the result of devolution, and of Scotland and Wales having taken different decisions on the implementation of common agricultural policy reform—but we still believe that our decision to implement it on a flat rate basis is the right one for England. We are aware of quota moving over the border, but to judge by the reports we have received so far, that will not be a serious problem.

David Taylor: Has the Secretary of State responded to the letter of 19 March from the Dairy Industry Association Ltd. on this topic? It points out the paramount need for dairy farmers to restructure their businesses in order to survive in the new commercial environment created by a reduction in support, and it fears that—even in the light of today's announcement on the new areas—sub-moorland farmers in severely disadvantaged areas will struggle to survive in their traditional way.

Ben Bradshaw: I am afraid that I cannot say whether the Secretary of State has yet to respond to that letter, but in today's announcement she certainly took on board the concerns expressed by the dairy industry. Indeed, the changes announced today were supported by the dairy industry and by virtually all sectors of the agriculture industry. However, that is not all that the Government are doing to help the industry. As my hon. Friend probably knows, my noble Friend who speaks for the Government in the other place chairs the dairy supply chain forum, which is working with the dairy industry to try to do exactly what my hon. Friend wants: to make sure that the industry has a healthy and secure future, but one that is market oriented, not subsidy oriented.

Andrew George: Is the Minister prepared to admit that because his Department has treated the House as a notice board rather than a debating Chamber, crucial issues of scrutiny have not been completed? Substantial issues affecting dairy farmers, tenant farmers and others have been unresolved, so the Government have had to back pedal and make today's statement—a written statement about severely disadvantaged areas.
	In a written answer of 17 March, Hansard column 279, the Minister's colleague said that all the assessments that I had asked the Government to publish would be produced in a document "shortly", but it is now 10 weeks since that answer. Does the Minister admit that those assessments and the statement were made without any proper assessment at all?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I do not, and it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman, who is usually more reasonable in these matters, is accusing the Government of having listened to the concerns of the industry—which is exactly what we have done. It would be fair to say that many people within the industry had not expected the Government to adopt a flat rate payment for the implementation of CAP reform and were unready to consider the consequences of such an implementation. It was precisely after the announcement in February that concerns were raised by the industry. We have taken them into account and made an announcement to Parliament at the earliest opportunity—today.

Horse Passports

Roger Gale: What representations she has received on horse passports.

Alun Michael: The Government have received a range of representations about horse passports. Some have been over-simplistic, opposing horse passports altogether—though they are a legal requirement—and others, particularly among the horse industry, have been constructive and have endorsed our approach of working with the industry to seize the opportunity to create a comprehensive horse database.

Roger Gale: The Minister is aware that horses and ponies are kept in great swathes of the UK where the veterinary and other infrastructure is insufficient to satisfy the demands of the new bureaucracy. There are growing concerns on the one hand about the export of live equines for slaughter, and on the other about the imposition of a bureaucracy whose demands people have no reasonable way of meeting.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman mixes two issues, the first of which is horse passports. Introducing the passport system and putting in place the necessary work to ensure that all horses have passports is a major issue. We are aware of that and we are talking to the industry about how best to ease the pressure. The second issue is the export of live animals for slaughter, which we have no intention of encouraging. The Under-Secretary and I have worked hard with the industry and animal welfare organisations, and Britain is taking a lead in ensuring, first, that we do not create a business in live horse exports and, secondly, that the welfare of animals in transport is protected and improved.

Richard Ottaway: There is a link between the two issues of live exports and passports because a continental abattoir will not accept horses without a passport. The Minister must realise that. A million horse owners are going to have to pay up to £50 to have a compulsory ID card, all to pay for a huge DEFRA database that will be a bureaucratic nightmare. Does the Minister accept that the best way to protect our horses is to withdraw his regulations, stand up to the EU and be the Minister for the horse, not for Brussels?

Alun Michael: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new duties. I hope that when he has played himself in by listening to the industry and understanding the issues, we can have more intelligent questions. We have no intention of creating what he described as a huge DEFRA database. Instead of leading a bureaucratic approach to the implementation of any such database, we are working with the industry and it will be industry-owned. In the fullness of time, I hope that Conservative Members will realise that they are losing their audience in the horse industry, whose people are increasingly recognising that it is this side of the House that is interested in the future of the horse and the industry, and that the Conservatives are doing them no favours.

Cider Orchards

David Heathcoat-Amory: What representations she has received on the exclusion of cider orchards from the proposed area payments under the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy.

Alun Michael: This matter was the subject of an Adjournment debate on Tuesday, led by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Some commentators feared that our orchards would be grubbed up in order to qualify for the new single payment. As such applications would qualify only for the new flat rate element, the financial benefits would be small, and I therefore believe the fears to be misplaced. We are working with the industry to make sure that traditional orchards and biodiversity are not damaged by the new arrangements.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Minister aware that Somerset's cider orchards are a vital asset, for the cider that they produce, for their appearance—especially at this time of year—and because they provide a habitat for many interesting species of insects, birds and so on? Those orchards miss out on the new area payments unless they are grubbed up and returned to agricultural use. Why is that? Contrary to what the Minister just said, there is a clear economic incentive to take the trees away and return the land to ordinary agricultural use. Why is he persisting in a scheme that is unfair to apple growers, and also a clear threat to the diversity and beauty of our environment? That is something about which his Department ought to be more concerned.

Alun Michael: There seems to be a clear trend today—Conservative Members who are not up to speed on the issues about which they ask questions. I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman read the interesting exchanges in the Adjournment debate held only two days ago. He made no distinction between commercial cider orchards and more traditional orchards, and he did not refer to stewardship, which provides more financial support to many traditional orchards than would be available through the flat rate element in the new single payment. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gets to grip with the facts.

Hugh Robertson: In common with other growers, cider apple producers are heavily dependent on legal labour, provided under the student agricultural workers scheme, to harvest their crops. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the students who come from Romania and Bulgaria every year will arrive in time to harvest summer fruit in May and June, and that they do not get caught up in immigration chaos?

Alun Michael: I am not going to stray into areas that are appropriate for the Home Office and other Departments, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are fully conscious of the need for seasonal workers to carry out the sort of activity that he describes. We will respond to a private Member's Bill shortly, but we want to encourage legal seasonal working and to discourage those who operate illegally. In that context, we understand the importance of the students and those who come through the avenues that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Farm Subsidies

Matthew Green: What discussions she has had on her proposals for single farm payments in respect of farmers in severely disadvantaged areas.

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had discussions with, and received representations from, a wide range of interests on this subject. As a result, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality noted earlier, she made a written statement to the House this morning. It changes the boundaries for the single farm payment from two regions—severely disadvantaged areas and non-SDA—to moorland within SDAs, the rest of SDAs, and non-SDA. That change has the support of all the main interested organisations, including the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the National Beef Association, the National Sheep Association, the Tenant Farmers Association, the dairy producers, and organisations such as the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the Association of National Park Authorities.

Matthew Green: For once, I want to congratulate the Government on listening to farming organisations. I am grateful that they have taken a rational and sensible decision in this matter. I also congratulate the farming organisations that have managed to get together to speak with one voice for the industry. In particular, the NFU in my area did a wonderful job in keeping SDA farmers closely informed and aware of developments.
	I turn the Minister's attention to the final paragraph of the Secretary of State's written statement. It states:
	"I have therefore asked my officials to consider how the next round of rural development programming (from 2007 onwards) can better reflect the needs of upland communities".
	That is potentially more—

Hon. Members: Get on with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow long supplementary questions.

Ben Bradshaw: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to the concerns of some moorland farmers who may lose out as a result of the adjustment made today. He is absolutely right to draw attention to that, and to the Government's very serious response to those problems. He is right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has outlined a number of ways in which the Government will address some of the problems that poorer hill farmers might face in due course.

Paddy Tipping: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's announcement this morning and the fact that she has listened to the consensus view of the farming industry. However, there is another consensus: the whole sector wants those payments to be made in 2005. Many of us have real concerns about the Rural Payments Agency, which is undergoing a big programme of change at present. Is the Minister confident that payments will be made on time next year?

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a challenging time scale, but we are confident that we can meet it and every effort will be made to ensure that we do so.

Patrick McLoughlin: Why will farmers in Parwich in my constituency be paid at two different levels?

Ben Bradshaw: That is the inevitable consequence of having area-based payments and three different regions. If the hon. Gentleman has a better idea, perhaps he would let us have it.

John Whittingdale: Although we welcome the announcement today, have not the four weeks that the Government have spent considering the industry's proposal further reduced the time available to set up the new arrangements? I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). There is real concern that the Rural Payments Agency will be unable to cope. Does the Minister understand that those concerns have been heightened by the delays this year, which have meant that some IACS—integrated administration and control scheme—forms have only just arrived, giving farmers only three weeks to complete and submit them in order to meet the deadline?

Ben Bradshaw: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), we are confident that the payments will be made in time. Over the next two weeks, the Government will write to every farmer and farming business in the country to explain how we have decided to implement CAP reform. The payments will be made, starting next year, as the Government proposed.

Sewage Tanks (Odour Pollution)

Vincent Cable: When she proposes to issue guidance on the environmental standards required of water companies in respect of odour pollution from sewage tanks.

Elliot Morley: We plan to consult on a code of practice on odour from sewage treatment plants this summer, and to publish it by the end of the year.

Vincent Cable: I thank the Minister for that reply. Following the useful meeting between his colleague, Lord Whitty, and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), myself and our constituents, and given the legal ruling that water companies will be prosecuted for odour emission, does the Minister agree that it is urgent that those companies are set a timetable for converting their sewage plants to prevent odour emission, along the lines of modern plants such as those in Reading?

Elliot Morley: We recognise that in certain parts of the country there have been long-standing problems with sewage treatment plants and the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of my Department to one of them. He is right that there is legislation, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to take action against odour nuisance. The idea behind the code of practice is to ensure that all sewage treatment companies have a list of measures that can be taken to mitigate the problem—of course, if they do not, they run the risk of prosecution. In some cases, that may mean capital investment, but not in others; that is a matter for the companies to put into their business plans and to put to the regulator.

Mark Francois: May I encourage the Minister to crack on with this as soon as possible? The issue has caused considerable concern in my constituency, especially around the Stambridge sewage works, operated by Anglian Water Services Ltd., where there has been much controversy between local residents and the company. To be fair, Anglian Water has tried to improve the situation, but the sooner clear guidance is issued, the better it will be for everybody.

Elliot Morley: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to issue guidance as soon as possible this summer. I am sure that it will help with some of the problems. To be fair to many sewage treatment companies, they recognise the need to address particular localised problems.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Simon Burns: If she will make a statement on the recently released figures on carbon dioxide emissions.

Elliot Morley: Carbon dioxide emissions for 2003 are provisionally estimated at about 152.5 million tonnes of carbon, about 7 per cent. lower than in 1990. Emissions increased by 1.5 per cent. between 2002 and 2003. The increase was due largely to the greater use of coal for electricity generation and a decrease in net imports of electricity from the continent.

Simon Burns: I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply, although he has not given the full picture. Does he accept that in two of the last three years emissions have increased and are now only 7 per cent. below 1990 levels? Bearing in mind that the Government signed up to the Kyoto commitment of a 12.5 per cent. reduction and that they even went beyond that, off their own bat, to set a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010, do they not fear that defeat is staring them in the face?

Elliot Morley: No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman has mixed up two figures. The Kyoto agreement is on greenhouses gasses, but he is talking about CO 2 . The 2003 figures on greenhouse gases show that we were 14 per cent. below the 1990 level. The Kyoto target is 12.5 per cent. We are not complacent about the stabilisation on CO 2 cbut our figures are one of the best results of any country, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that on 20 May there will be a demonstration in Parliament of a hydrogen-powered car. It will be a few years before the technology is realisable, but in the meantime will he encourage Departments to look carefully at the Environment Agency research that shows that a British-built Vauxhall powered by LPG is among the cleanest vehicles on the road? Should not the Government take a lead by buying such vehicles?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is aware that the Government car fleet has a number of LPG-powered vehicles, which offer certain advantages. Indeed, their great strength is their effect on air quality. To reduce greenhouse gases we must look at new technologies, including hydrogen fuel cells and clean technologies. We need international co-operation, which is why we have been talking to Japan and, on research and development, to the United States. We recently set up REEEP—the renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership—at the instigation of the UK, although the secretariat is now based in Austria. The idea is to bring together best practice, new technologies and ideas on an international basis so that we can share them and establish the use of new technologies, along with caps on greenhouse emissions, to reduce CO 2 and greenhouse gases generally.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that he has no chance of meeting his CO 2 emission reduction targets unless the Government get a grip on the transport sector, which is in free fall? We now have the highest level of carbon dioxide emissions from road transport since 1970; there is a projected 25 per cent. increase in road traffic between now and 2010, according to the Department for Transport; and there is a projected doubling of emissions from aircraft between 1990 and 2010. What is the Government's policy on demand management of transport, or is it simply hand wringing?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman's view is too negative. I do not underestimate the challenge posed by the growth in car ownership and use and, indeed, the growth in air transport. We must address those serious issues and we must tackle air transport internationally. I am optimistic that we can make progress in the European Union on carbon trading by bringing air transport within the EU emissions trading scheme, and we will press the Commission for such an inclusion. As for road transport, we need continued investment in public transport, the policy on which has been outlined in the transport White Paper. Cars are becoming cleaner, emissions are going down and CO 2 has fallen in the past few years. I repeat that I do not want to be complacent and we need to make further progress, particularly on CO 2 . There are various ways of doing so—there is not a single solution—and we must explore all the options.

Joan Walley: It is clear that the Government are doing an enormous amount, particularly as they have chosen global warming as the theme for their presidency of the G8 next year. In the light of a report issued today by the Office of Science and Technology on the extent of flooding problems and their effects on our Victorian sewerage system, it is not time that my hon. Friend had urgent talks with the Environment Agency and environmental health officers to see what investment needs to be made now to deal with the effects of global warming?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have been talking about progress on the reduction of greenhouse gases, and she has demonstrated that global warming has consequences. The foresight report on flooding, which was launched today by Professor Sir David King, the chief scientist, looks at a number of scenarios linked to different rates of economic growth. It examines enormous implications such as rising sea levels, river flooding and sewerage flooding after downpours. There are cost implications, so we have increased spending on coastal defence to £500 million a year and in the past three years we have funded 385 different coast and river protection schemes. It is likely that there will be implications for further spending as a result of such reports. The report demonstrates that there is no cost-free option for dealing with climate change. To try to ignore the consequences of climate change would have enormous consequences for our economy and our country, and internationally. That is the message that we must get across.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister share our disappointment that carbon dioxide emissions have increased, not decreased? In the transport sector since 1990, they have increased by as much as 4.5 per cent.—before the Government embark on their airport expansion plan. Why have the Government decided to exclude aviation from their emissions trading plan? Why do they now accept that the errors in their national allocation plan were so grave that they have had to delay it? Do they also share the deep concerns expressed by the Sustainable Development Commission that they are not on course to meet their own reduction targets by 2010?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. When we debated the national allocation plan, she was at pains to point out the worries about the effects on industry. Now she criticises us for the progress that we are making on reducing CO 2 emissions. We must be consistent, because these are serious issues. The reason why the national allocation plan has been delayed, which is true, is that it was a draft plan and we are trying to take into account the concerns of industry. We are trying to get our modelling right. We are determined not just to meet our Kyoto target, which we have met, but to go beyond that and achieve our commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gases by 2010 and ultimately 60 per cent. by 2050. That is setting the pace globally and internationally, which is important for our country. I am not complacent about the challenges that that brings or the measures that we must take. I have already said that we must make a start on aviation by bringing it into EU emissions trading and controls, because the current exemption cannot go on.

Michael Jack: Following the recent debate in the House on biodiesel after the Select Committee's report, the Minister will be aware of the contribution that that fuel can make to carbon dioxide reduction. He will also be aware that a cost-free way of trying to encourage a UK biodiesel industry was proposed in that debate and in the Energy Bill debate in another place. What do the Government intend to do to get a UK oil seed rape-based biodiesel industry off the ground?

Elliot Morley: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, apart from the 20p per litre subsidy on biofuels, there is a range of other subsidies, such as that for growing biofuels on set-aside land under the common agricultural policy regime. I agree that there is a role for biofuels, both bioethanol and biodiesel. We are reviewing the effects that the measures have had. They have certainly had a great effect on the reuse of vegetable oils and their conversion into biodiesel. That is helpful, and I should like to see it developed further. We shall keep the matter under review.

Hunting

Shona McIsaac: What recent progress has been made in relation to a ban on hunting with dogs.

Alun Michael: A clear commitment has been given to the House that the issue of hunting with dogs will be dealt with during the life of this Parliament.

Shona McIsaac: As this democratically elected House has expressed its will on the matter on a number of occasions, does my right hon. Friend agree that we can conclude the matter swiftly and that we could deal with all stages of a reintroduced Bill in one sitting day?

Alun Michael: I agree that the views of the House have been made clear. She knows as well as I do how announcements are made about how the future business of the House will be dealt with. I hear what she says. The commitment to which I referred was made at the time of the Queen's Speech and reinforced as recently as 7 January. I hope that that gives her sufficient confidence about the way in which we will deal with the issue.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In view of what the Minister has just said, could he predict when this Parliament might end?

Alun Michael: I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider how the business of this House is dealt with. I am sure that he has sufficient knowledge to make predictions of his own.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister accept that, when he says, "in this Parliament", the next Session of Parliament could be a relatively short one? There are fewer than 20 parliamentary weeks in this Session. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, if a big conversation is launched in the Labour party, and in almost every single discussion the banning of fox hunting in this Session of Parliament rears its head, the matter is not being dealt with. Get on with it. The Prime Minister dealt with the European problem the other day; let us settle this one as well.

Alun Michael: In some of the big conversations in which I have taken part in rural areas, fox hunting has not come up as a major issue. People are concerned about big issues to do with employment, education, jobs and the economy. Nevertheless, this is an important issue that needs to be dealt with. That is why an assurance has been given that it will be dealt with in this Parliament. I assure my hon. Friend that the question of how long remains in this Parliament has been fully considered.

David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be bitter disappointment among the large majority of Labour Members and the majority of people in the country if, in this Parliament—the second with a strong Labour majority in the House of Commons—there is no ban on this barbaric sport? Is it not time for this Government to have the courage to say to the House of Lords, "We will not accept your veto; the elected Chamber will decide", and to make sure in this Parliament, before the general election, that there is a ban, which I hope the Tories will challenge in the general election?

Alun Michael: I am indeed aware of the passion that this issue raises and the views of my hon. Friend and many colleagues. That is why a commitment has been made that the issue will indeed be dealt with during the life of this Parliament. I suggest that a measured view should be taken of this issue. It needs to be dealt with and people have passionate views about it, and that is why it will be dealt with in the course of this Parliament.

Fishing Licences

David Amess: How many registered fishing licences have been revoked since 2001; and if she will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: None. If for any reason a licence becomes invalid, the holder of the licence will usually retain an entitlement to apply for a further licence, which must be made within three years of the entitlement first arising.

David Amess: I believe that the Minister recognises how important the fishing and cockling industry is to my constituents in Leigh-on-Sea in Essex. I think that he also realises that local families feel under increasing pressure in terms of the catch that they can take as a result of changes from Europe. Will he agree to meet a small delegation of those concerned to discuss changes in the licensing and registration of vessels?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I would be happy to receive a delegation. He will be aware that the cockling and shellfish industry in this country is doing extremely well at the moment. Recent figures show that incomes have doubled. As he knows, problems with North sea cod stocks may have affected some of his local fishermen, but I shall be happy to receive a delegation if he wants to bring one.

GM Crops

Joan Ruddock: If she will support a European marketing consent for sweetcorn from genetically modified maize line Bt 11.

Elliot Morley: The Government are accepting the advice that there are no reasons not to support the application by Syngenta for approval under the European novel foods regulations for sweetcorn from genetically modified maize line Bt11.

Joan Ruddock: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Belgian Government, the French Government and the Austrian Government have raised serious concerns about the scientific testing of this sweetcorn, which is designed for human consumption, and its safety? How can he support the marketing of this product when it has been tested under outdated and inadequate novel foods regulation, despite the fact that a much more rigorous testing regime has just become law in the EU?

Elliot Morley: I understand that the application complies with the more rigorous rules introduced by the EU, but I will check that point because I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in the matter. A number of countries have raised concerns about the maize, but those points do not all concern testing and food safety. The range of issues includes traceability and labelling, and we sympathise with those concerns. The concerns raised by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes were put to the lead authority, and they were answered in full to the committee's satisfaction. The maize has been approved for food use in the EU since 1998 and the Food Standards Agency and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes believe that their concerns have been answered satisfactorily.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that various farm-scale trials were conducted in my constituency and that the industry's response was mixed? Many organic farmers are dead against GM crops. Does he agree that it is vital to implement a proper compensation scheme to cover possible damage to crops grown by non-GM farmers?

Elliot Morley: That was one of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission's recommendations and we accept it. We have made it clear that we intend to consult on the shape of a compensation scheme. I understand that a further question has been tabled on that point, which will give an opportunity to go into the matter in more detail.

Bovine TB

George Osborne: When he last met farmers' representatives to discuss the problem of tuberculosis in cattle.

Ben Bradshaw: Ministers regularly meet farmers and their representatives and bovine TB often features in those discussions. I recently received a delegation of Gloucestershire farmers, as well as visiting a farm affected by TB in my home county, Devon. Farmers have also been represented at each of the regional TB strategy workshops, which we are holding as part of the consultation on the review of the TB strategy.

George Osborne: If the Minister came to Cheshire, he would know that dairy farmers there want the Government to stop dragging their feet and get a grip on the bovine TB problem. Can he predict when a policy will be implemented, and whether it will take Professor Godfray's findings into account?

Ben Bradshaw: The policy is being reviewed and we will take those findings into account. We are listening, not least to a delegation from Cheshire that advocated a number of extra measures, such as pre-movement and post-movement testing, to prevent the spread of TB to areas that currently have a relatively low level of infection, such as Cheshire. We are consulting on those measures and my officials would be pleased to receive ideas or representations from either the hon. Gentleman or representatives of the farming industry in his constituency.

James Plaskitt: Last week, I discussed that exact problem with Warwickshire farmers, who are concerned about the risks and the slow progress towards a solution. Is the Minister confident that adequate veterinary resources are in place to deliver pre-movement testing in a timely and cost-effective way?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. The level of testing increases all the time. We have overcome the post-foot and mouth backlog and the level of testing is higher than that before foot and mouth.

Nicholas Winterton: Bovine TB is extremely serious—it is taken very seriously in dairy areas of the United Kingdom—and I fully support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). A number of farmers in my constituency are becoming increasingly concerned about when the Government review will be concluded and when the Government will make recommendations for action. Will the Minister state the cost of bovine TB?

Ben Bradshaw: In the past year, bovine TB cost the taxpayer £74 million. The cost includes not only compensation, which is about half that figure, but the substantial sums that the Government commit to research into vaccines and to the badger culling trials. We recognise that the problem is incredibly serious for the farming industry—the difficulty is that there are no magic wand solutions, as some in this House and the media seem to think.

Owen Paterson: I think that the farmer whom the Minister mentioned is Mr. Tony Yewdall from Devon, who is in despair today as he awaits the results of Monday's tuberculin test. He has lost 48 of his pedigree Guernsey cattle. He effectively runs a closed herd, and has brought in only three animals in the past year. He has experienced a very large increase in his badger population and wrote to the Minister asking for a licence to remove or have badgers removed under section 10(2)(a) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which was passed by the last Conservative Government to stop the disgusting practice of badger baiting. The Minister kindly replied to him, saying that he would not issue licences
	"except in truly exceptional circumstances"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow such a long supplementary. It is unfair to the House—there are other Members. Let the Minister try to answer.

Ben Bradshaw: I did indeed spend about half a day with Mr. Yewdall and his family and we examined every possible way of avoiding culling his cattle before they calved. I recognised that it was a very distressing experience for him. I have to say, however, that the very strong, unanimous veterinary advice that I received said that it would set a dangerous precedent to make an exception in this case and that it would make further infection on his farm and on neighbouring farms worse.
	If the hon. Gentleman has changed Conservative party policy, as he has been quoted in some of the media as having done, so that the Conservative party would now license individual farmers to cull badgers, he should come clean and say so.

GM Crops

Peter Luff: If she will make a statement on her policy on assigning legal liability relating to the planting of genetically modified crops.

Elliot Morley: The Government recognise that the commercial growing of GM crops raises issues of legal liability. We have made it clear that we will consult stakeholders on options for providing compensation for any economic losses suffered by non-GM farmers through no fault of their own. We are also considering the issue of liability for environmental damage.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for that helpful response, but why did the Government engage in a shallow procedural trick to stop the vote on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)? I accept that they wanted to oppose it, but surely a debate would have been helpful. I understand that there is the prospect in the near future of a debate in Government time on GM crops. If such a debate takes place, will the Minister address the issues at much greater length than he can during a parliamentary question and answer?

Elliot Morley: I can certainly confirm that a commitment was given that there would be an opportunity for a debate on GM crops in Government time, and that commitment is being honoured. I look forward to that debate, which will give all Members an opportunity to raise whatever aspect of the issue they choose.

US Warships (Disposal)

Alan Simpson: If she will make a statement on responsibility for the US ghost ships in the UK.

Elliot Morley: Four US ships are currently docked in Hartlepool. We understand that the company concerned intends to submit the necessary applications for planning permission and a waste management licence for the Graythorp site for the dismantling of the vessels, which would need to be considered by the relevant authorities. In the meantime, dismantling work on the ships is prevented and they are subject to regular inspection by the authorities.

Alan Simpson: The Minister will remember that, when he gave evidence before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs during our inquiry into ghost ships, there arose the question of the point at which the legal liability for those ships would fall on the UK. In his evidence, he said that the clock was ticking under the 180-day rule, which meant that the UK would assume liability for the ships on 19 May. He also told the Committee that he would seek clarification with the EU as to whether the new 365-day regulations would come in before the weather window opened. Finally, he assured us that when the weather window opened, the ships would be returned.
	Can the Minister tell the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has enough to go on.

Elliot Morley: I have checked the situation under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rules and the EU rules, and the 365-day rule is the relevant one. The ships are stored safely at Hartlepool and are regularly inspected. My hon. Friend will be aware that, following a meeting of the non-governmental organisations, I have agreed to put in place an overall strategy for dealing with recycling ships in the UK. The ownership of the ships and liability rests with Able UK and MARAD—the US Maritime Administration—and the regulator is the Environment Agency, in which I have the utmost confidence. The weather window for the return of the ships is, realistically, around the end of May. However, I do not want to duck the issue. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that we should consider the best environmental option, which, in my view, is to recycle them on site. Of course, that requires the necessary legal and environmental permissions. If they cannot be recycled on site, the next best option is to recycle them in the United Kingdom or the European Union. If that cannot be done, they will have to be returned. However, if we are concerned about environmental outcomes—I hope that hon. Members are—the best environmental option is to recycle on site.

Incinerators (Transport of Waste)

Bob Russell: What guidance she gives to local authorities on the transport of waste to incinerators.

Elliot Morley: Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires transport of controlled waste to be carried out by an authorised person in accordance with the waste duty of care code. Waste collection authorities are authorised persons for this purpose. The waste duty of care code of practice of 1996 provides guidance to everyone who handles controlled waste, including its transportation.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, as far it went. Does he agree that the proximity principle needs to tightened so that waste is not carried long distances, and certainly not more than 10 miles? Does he also agree that, if local authorities want their waste incinerated, they should have incinerators in their backyard, thus ensuring that London's rubbish is not carted 60 miles to a proposed incinerator in Colchester?

Elliot Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course it is desirable to deal with waste as near as possible to its source. However, he knows that getting permission for incineration capacity is difficult. If the Liberal Democrats now support the provision of incineration capacity when that is the best environmental option, it might make matters easier.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Simon Thomas: What proportion of the increase in carbon dioxide emissions in 2003 was due to (a) an increase in energy consumption and (b) an increase in aviation fuel consumption.

Elliot Morley: The increase can largely be accounted for by higher energy consumption, with the increase in power station emissions being partly offset by lower emissions from residential energy use, transportation and industrial energy use. The share of domestic aviation cannot yet be separately identified within transportation.

Simon Thomas: Earlier, the Minister said that the Government had a good story to tell on the matter. By accident or design, that is partly true. However, are not the Government about to lose their pole position in Europe? The worrying decline in the reduction of CO 2 emissions needs to be reversed. Will he assure hon. Members that the submission that he is preparing under the EU emissions trading directive will not retreat from the aims and objectives that were set out in the initial consultation, especially the 5.8 per cent. reduction that is expected from the industrial sector?

Elliot Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will stick to the targets and objectives in the energy White Paper. When setting a cap, we must take account of current circumstances and modelling. We have already set it at 16.4 per cent. in the national allocation plan. We are discussing that with industry, but our intention is to reach 20 per cent. by 2010. We have made better progress on our Kyoto commitments, as I have outlined to hon. Members. I am confident that, once we get the European emissions trading scheme up and running, British industry will do better than the trajectory that we are setting for it and that we will reach the 20 per cent. target. However, we have said that we will make necessary adjustments in 2007 or 2008 to achieve it.

Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that CO 2 capture and storage in depleted undersea oilfields, which is permissible under the OSPAR convention, would make an important contribution to carbon reduction? Since that has been recognised in a recently published Department of Trade and Industry report, will he support further work on the proposal so that it can become part of the Government's carbon abatement technology programme?

Elliot Morley: It is important that we consider all the options in relation to reducing greenhouse gases and CO 2 . That will include increasing the amount of renewables—to which the Government are committed, following the energy White Paper—and clean fuel technology. We also need to look at carbon sequestration. I do not see that as a long-term solution, but it might be useful in the medium term. We would have to assess its environmental impact in some detail and we will. Nevertheless, it is an option, and we should give serious consideration to it.

Fisheries (Scotland)

Michael Weir: What recent discussions she has had with Scottish fishermen's organisations regarding the effect on the Scottish fishing industry of the European fishing agreement.

Ben Bradshaw: I have regular meetings with members of the Scottish fishing industry and met them recently in Edinburgh at the launch of the Prime Minister's strategy unit report on the future of the fishing industry. I also recently received a delegation that included the hon. Gentleman, at which time he raised a number of issues relevant to the fishing industry in Scotland that I hope have been resolved to his satisfaction.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for his answer. Certainly, some of the issues have been resolved. The changes in the map are welcome, although the draconian new enforcement measures are perhaps not quite so welcome. Issues regarding days at sea have yet to be resolved. The Minister will recall that, in European Standing Committee A, he indicated that he was still discussing that issue with Europe. Does he share the view of Ross Finnie, the Scottish fishing Minister, who said on his return to work yesterday that he was horribly disappointed at the time Europe was taking to deal with the issue? Can the Under-Secretary give us an idea of when these matters will be dealt with?

Ben Bradshaw: We will certainly make the representations that the hon. Gentleman would like us to make in regard to those fishermen with haddock permits spending more time at sea. The wheels of the Commission sometimes do not move as fast as we would like, but we will certainly try to make them move as quickly as they can.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 26 April—Remaining stages of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 27 April—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 28 April—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Thursday 29 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments followed by Opposition half-day [7th allotted day] (Part 2). There will be a half-day debate entitled "The failure of the Government to protect the UK from animal and plant diseases" on an Opposition motion.
	Friday 30 April—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 3 May—The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 4 May—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill.
	Wednesday 5 May—Opposition half-day [10th allotted day] (Part 1). There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution on the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, followed by a debate on genetically modified crops on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 6 May—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for May will be:
	Thursday 6 May—Debate on the report from the Transport Committee on ports.
	Thursday 13 May—Debate on poverty and south Asia.
	Thursday 20 May—Debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism.
	Thursday 27 May—Debate on the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee on judicial appointments and a Supreme Court (Court of Final Appeal).

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I have one or two questions for him—a sort of tidying-up exercise, really. He will remember last year describing the European constitution as a "tidying-up exercise", and he went on to say:
	"I think those who are starting off on a campaign for a referendum might as well put away their placards and stop wasting their money because we are not going to do it."
	Now that the Prime Minister has slapped him down, engaged reverse gear and is to have a referendum, would he agree that it is his job to bring it on? Or is his head as firmly in the sand as that of the Foreign Secretary, who said today that the referendum might never happen?
	The Leader of the House can be assured of our full co-operation, so may we have the necessary Bill for the referendum within the next two weeks? Does he agree that the constitution that the Government negotiate cannot be changed by this House, so there is no need for lengthy debate before we have a referendum? Is it not right that if the British people say no in the referendum, that will be the end of the constitution, or does he take the view that he would simply keep asking until the people get it right? Is not the correct approach to accept the verdict of the people? If they vote yes, so be it. We would accept such a result. If they vote no, there should be no constitution. Why cannot the Government accept that?
	Will an oral statement be made next week about local authority finances? May we have a debate on the Floor of the House before any capping occurs?
	On Northern Ireland, may I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1011, which refers to the worrying recent monitoring report?
	[That this House notes with great concern the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission; and calls upon the Government to make parliamentary time available for the House to reconsider the facilities made available by the House authorities to Sinn Fein members.]
	What time can he make available for a debate on that?
	Finally, the Foreign Secretary has promised a debate on the desperate situation in Zimbabwe. The English cricket board needs clear advice from the Government against a tour. When can we have that debate, and when can we have the advice?

Peter Hain: I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his inspiring series of questions, for which I am most grateful.
	The Government have made clear our position on the tour to Zimbabwe. It is a matter, however, for the English cricket authorities to decide—

Simon Thomas: And Wales.

Peter Hain: Indeed, the English and Wales cricket authorities must decide. Glamorgan players qualify for the English team, in a welcome sign of unity of the United Kingdom. The situation has changed significantly in recent times, however. An open letter has been signed by 13 white players in the Zimbabwean side, including the former captain, Heath Streak, which says:
	"There has, in our view, been racial and ethnic discrimination in the selection of the national team."
	That seems to put the issue in a different perspective. It is not simply a question of appeasing a despot, the brutal tyrant Robert Mugabe, but an issue about sport. That takes me back to when I was in the picture, more than 30 years ago—[Hon. Members: "Digging up pitches."] No, I never dug up any cricket pitches. I ran on them and sat down on them to stop apartheid tours, for which Nelson Mandela thanked me, as, I guess, would most Members of the House.
	With the England cricket tour to Zimbabwe, we are faced with a different situation, which is that the Zimbabwean team, according to the former captain and 12 other white players, appears to be rigged in a discriminatory way, on racial lines. That puts the issue in an entirely different category. I also note that the Australian leg spinner Stuart MacGill has refused to take part, and I would expect many English cricketers to refuse to take part, too. If they did, I would be with them all the way.
	On the question of the European Union constitution, about which the shadow Leader of the House helpfully and generous quoted all sorts of things that I had been saying last year, may I paraphrase Churchill by saying that there is no better diet than eating one's own words? That is precisely what the Prime Minister, I, the Foreign Secretary and a number of others have been doing these past few days. [Interruption.] No, it is very appetising.
	The serious point, which I know that the shadow Leader of the House will want me to make, as he asked his question in his customary serious fashion, is that we took the view quite properly, as did many Members on both sides of the House, that the House of Commons was the proper forum to ratify such treaties, as has been done previously, subject to line by line scrutiny. It was clear from the public opposition, however, that that position was not sustainable. The Prime Minister and the Government have therefore responded to public opinion and opinion in the House, and have decided to call a referendum, for which we deserve credit. That is the issue.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of subsidiary questions. In particular, he asked whether we would have a referendum Bill within two weeks. What an absurd question for someone who aspires to be the Leader of the House of Commons to ask! We do not even have a settled constitutional treaty yet. How could we have a referendum on something that has not even been finally negotiated, let alone agreed in a final signing ceremony by all member states? What an absurd proposition. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman is at all serious about aspiring to be Leader of the House, he must know that a Bill of that kind could not possibly be drafted within days. We should get real on this question.
	Effectively, the hon. Gentleman has said that there should be a pre-legislative referendum. That is the new official position of the Conservative party.

Simon Thomas: What about Wales?

Peter Hain: I shall come to Wales in a moment.
	Only a few years ago, the Leader of the Opposition said:
	"A pre-legislative referendum is designed to pre-empt parliamentary debate. It is not a new device. The device was the hallmark of continental dictatorships between the wars."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 736.]
	Let us consider what the constitutional treaty might look like. It will be a document with nearly 500 pages, nearly 500 clauses and nearly 100,000 words. Ought not such a document to be scrutinised in detail by this Parliament before being put to the people? This is a very different proposition from that of 1997, when we asked the people of Wales and Scotland whether they agreed with the principle of a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly. What we are talking about now is bringing together a series of past European treaties—three quarters of the new constitutional treaty will consist of them, if it is agreed—and enabling the House to examine the treaty in great detail before inviting the people of Britain to make a decision. That is the logical way to proceed, and the way we intend to proceed.
	The Prime Minister has already answered the question about what would happen in the event of a "no" vote, but let me add this. We will work very hard to persuade the country of our case. If we agree to a constitutional treaty in the first place, it will only be on the basis of its being in Britain's national interests, and on the basis that all our key interests in respect of a veto on taxation, foreign policy, defence and the rest—matters that the Foreign Secretary has put before the House repeatedly—have been satisfied. If they are not satisfied, we will not agree to the treaty. If they are, we will believe—we do believe—that it will be in the country's interests, and will therefore make the case in the expectation of winning the argument and winning it in the national interest.
	There will be a statement on local authority finance next Thursday, when Members will have an opportunity to question the Minister of State about capping.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Northern Ireland. As he will know, the Independent Monitoring Commission's first report has raised serious issues. He will recall that on Tuesday the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement to the House, saying that the Government were minded to act in line with the IMC's own recommendation that we consider withholding financial assistance from Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with that—and I think that I have answered all his questions fully and frankly.

Paul Tyler: May I tell the Leader of the House how much pleasure it gives me, and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, to hear him reverting to the radical instincts of his liberal youth? I hope he may be able to extend that to other issues besides Zimbabwe.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we have at least been entirely consistent about the need for referendums on major issues relating to constitutional relationships with Europe? That applies not least to the Maastricht treaty; I recall that only a small number of Conservatives joined us in the Division Lobbies then.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the motions on today's Order Paper relate to House rather than Government matters, and that there will therefore be a free vote with no question of his seeking to dragoon his payroll colleagues into the Lobbies in the event of a Division?
	May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have still not heard a proper statement on the Government's proposals, or non-proposals, for House of Lords reform? He will recall that on 18 March, when I asked him when there would be a statement, he said:
	"I ask the hon. Gentleman, in the nicest way, to contain himself on this matter. When we are ready to say how we are proceeding on the House of Lords questions, we will do so. An announcement will be made and he will need to wait until then."—[Official Report, 18 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 453.]
	As it happens, the very next morning, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs made the announcement on the "Today" programme. Is not that an extraordinary disrespect for Parliament?
	There is a written statement on House of Lords reform on the Order Paper today. When will we get an opportunity to hear exactly what the Government now intend and to question the appropriate Ministers? Is it not extraordinary that, apparently, in that response today, the Government ask for a wide-ranging debate but do not give us, Members of Parliament, an opportunity to debate the issue? When does the Leader of the House expect that to happen? Seven years' work—the royal commission, the White Paper, the Public Administration Committee, the Joint Committee—has been torn up overnight by the Cabinet without any response or debate in Parliament. What does he intend to do, as the defender of House of Commons rights, to ensure that that situation does not continue?

Peter Hain: On the question of a referendum, the hon. Gentleman invites me to accept the proposition that the Liberal Democrats are totally consistent. As all my right hon. and hon. Friends will confirm, the Liberal Democrats will say one thing to one part of Britain and another thing to another part, to gain opportunistic advantage, so the idea of being consistent is a novel proposition from any Liberal Democrat which I regret to say I am not prepared to accept.
	The debate on the security screen, which we will shortly undertake, will be a completely free vote. There will be no dragooning of anyone into the Chamber. It is a matter for the House. As I will make clear this afternoon, the decision on it was taken without consulting the Prime Minister or the Cabinet—I expressly did not consult either the Prime Minister or the Cabinet.
	I have noticed the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I do not wish to anticipate the debate, but since he has raised the matter, I would point out that it raises very serious issues. I am clear where I stand on it. If he and other hon. Members wish to avoid the responsibility that I have had to undertake, that is a matter for them; but I will spell out clearly the consequences of taking that action, which could be very serious indeed, based on the security advice that I have been given by the director general of the security services.
	On House of Lords reform, the hon. Gentleman says that the Government are showing disrespect for Parliament. Disrespect for the House of Commons has been shown repeatedly over the past year or two, up the corridor, by Conservative Members of the House of Lords, who have consistently defied the will of the House of Commons and sought to mobilise their majority with hereditaries to overturn the elected decisions of the Commons. That is where disrespect is being shown.
	In regard to consultation and the rest of it, as the hon. Gentleman says, a written statement has been made today, which refers to the responses to the consultation that the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, undertook. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that. There will be an opportunity to debate these matters. I give him that guarantee. The Government are determined to move forward on the issue in terms of composition, the powers of the Lords, and the reform of its procedures, too.

Harry Barnes: The reason for discussing the first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission on matters in Northern Ireland is that it would give us an opportunity to influence the Government's response to the report. Some of us feel that its financial provisions are inadequate. Some of us even feel that early-day motion 1011 does not go far enough. For example—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is getting us off to a bad start. This is questions, not statements. I ask all Members, a great many of whom are trying to catch my eye, to ask short questions, and we will have, I hope, brief answers.

Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission in order that a number of tougher measures could be brought forward? I do not think that there is an opportunity to say what those are at the moment, but there are a good number of them.

Peter Hain: I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend has made and his long interest in and expertise on the issue. It was an independent report. It is important that we have time to consider it. He will have the opportunity to raise any specific points at oral questions next Wednesday and, of course, he is free to apply for a debate at any time.

Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the leader of the House of what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday about the referendum on the European constitution?
	"Parliament should debate it in detail and decide upon it. Then, let the people have the final say."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 157.]
	I invite the Leader to introduce at the earliest opportunity the legislation for elected regional assemblies so that it can be debated and decided upon before the people decide; or is it just a matter of expediency which way the Government play these matters?

Peter Hain: No. As I have explained, there is a clear distinction between the two. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Indeed; before "ums" and "ahs" come from Opposition Members, I repeat what I have said. The question as to whether people in the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside want an elected regional assembly or not is an issue of principle. A Bill will be published in the summer that can be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and will be available to people voting in the referendums so that they can see what they will get. That is an issue of principle: do people want something or not? The constitutional treaty is an issue of substance. We are bringing together previous treaties for which the hon. Gentleman's Government—and, I suspect, he himself—voted. Some three quarters of the clauses in the new treaty are taken from existing treaties and brought together in a new form. In addition, there are new reforming and modernising measures to cope with enlargement. It is a big issue that is not about whether we join the EU or are in or out of it; or perhaps it is. Maybe that is what this is really about for some Opposition Members.
	We will have detailed scrutiny of the new draft constitutional treaty and about whether it is acceptable to the British people. Before we put it to the vote, the British people will expect 100,000 words, 500 pages and 500 articles to be scrutinised in detail by the hon. Gentleman and all of us before they know what they are being invited to vote upon. That is different from whether one wants a regional assembly or not.

Julia Drown: May we have a debate on how to create real choice in maternity services? A number of women in my constituency choose to give birth in the nearest midwife-led unit, which is in Malmesbury outside the primary care trust boundary. The unit is threatened with closure. May we have a debate on how we deliver, maintain and expand choice for women and on how we advertise services, as it is not just a question of looking at crude financial statistics that do not show the quality of service?

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Choice is absolutely crucial, especially to expectant mothers. There is a debate in my constituency about a decision to go to a midwife-led unit because of a shortage of consultants, so I am well aware of the issue. Actually, where it has happened elsewhere—in Caerphilly, for example, where it was subject to huge protest at the time—it has proved hugely successful and has been welcomed by women in particular. I recognise the point that she has made, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will note it carefully.

Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Cabinet was not consulted prior to Tuesday's statement on the constitutional referendum, and that if there is no collective decision there should be no collective responsibility? Members of the Cabinet will therefore be able to campaign on whichever side of the referendum they wish. Is not the fact that no collective decision was made another blow to democracy and another reason why the Daily Express has decided to quit supporting the Labour party and to support the Conservatives, to restore faith in our democracy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not see a great connection between the hon. Gentleman's question and next week's business. I hope that the Leader of the House will answer briefly.

Peter Hain: There is no connection at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Richard Burden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on fascism and the far right? I ask that, given the reported invitation over the coming days by the fascist British National party to Jean-Marie Le Pen to speak in the west midlands. Does he agree that Le Pen's racist and anti-Semitic outbursts are well known in France, and that we do not want the kind of racism, discord and disharmony that is spread by Le Pen and perpetuated by the BNP in the west midlands or, indeed, this whole country?

Peter Hain: Jean-Marie Le Pen is trying to exercise his right to free speech here; something he would not be able to do under the fascist, racist regimes that he supports. It is disturbing that he has been invited and all of us in this Chamber must redouble our efforts to ensure that neo-Nazis such as Le Pen get out of this country and take their hideous racist and anti-Semitic ideas with them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I once again appeal to the House for questions that relate, at least to some degree, to next week's business; otherwise, we are simply distorting the occasion.

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House be prepared to come back to the House next week to clarify what was said in this House on 20 April by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Chairman of our eminent European Scrutiny Committee, about the referendum Bill? He said that
	"full and proper parliamentary scrutiny will be applied to the Bill before any referendum."
	A few moments later, the Prime Minister said that
	"given that the constitutional treaty is a 300 page document"—
	the Prime Minister's version must be different from the Leader of the House's one—
	"it is surely right and better that the public have their say after an informed debate in the House in which we can thrash out some of the issues."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 470, c. 163.]
	I am asking the Leader to come back next week, as it would allow him to confirm that the constitution will be on a "take it or leave it" basis and that this House will have no opportunity to amend it. If we are to be given a 300 or 500-page document and told to take it or leave it, will he elaborate on what form he expects our debates, deliberations and scrutiny to take?

Peter Hain: The document is 500 pages with the protocols, which I would expect the Commons to want to look at as well. The actual draft constitutional treaty is in the form that the Prime Minister described. The right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in the House, knows that this constitutional treaty will be treated exactly like all the other treaties that have been brought before the House. A Bill will be introduced to give ratification effect—subject to a referendum in this instance—to the treaty, with the Committee stages held on the Floor of the House.

Hugh Bayley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Terry's of York, which has been making chocolate in my constituency for almost 240 years, announced this week that it intends to close, with the loss of 316 jobs? Those jobs will go to accession members of the EU from eastern Europe, Sweden and Belgium. Despite the fact that we are still getting inward investment, does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the loss of manufacturing jobs from this country? Will he express my concern to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Will there be an opportunity shortly for this House to debate our country's industrial policy?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has that opportunity regularly at Trade and Industry and Treasury questions, and he has the opportunity to raise his specific constituency issue in this House through the normal channels. I understand the point; it is a serious situation and a body blow to his constituency. I saw the context in which this is taking place during a visit to China as Secretary of State for Wales. Manufacturing is fleeing to China from all over the world because engineering wages can be as low as 60p an hour. There is no way we can compete with that kind of low labour cost, except by going up the added-value chain and increasing our investment in skills and science to deliver added-value manufacturing. That is the future for the British economy, as it is for my hon. Friend's constituency. Of course, unlike in the 1980s and 1990s, his constituents will be able to apply for jobs, because there are more jobs being generated in the British economy than ever before.

Roy Beggs: Will the Leader acknowledge the responsibility of the United Kingdom as a guarantor power in Cyprus? May we have an early debate in the House on Cyprus, a debate that might lead to an inquiry into the role of Alvaro de Soto—the Peruvian special representative of the UN Secretary-General for Cyprus—and the reasons for his perceived sympathetic bias towards the Greek Cypriots to the disadvantage of the Turkish Cypriots?

Peter Hain: I must deprecate, in the gentlest possible way, the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I know Mr. de Soto from my time as Europe Minister, and he is an expert and highly experienced United Nations representative who has done a fantastic job. If the situation were really as the hon. Gentleman describes it, it would be interesting to know why the Turkish Cypriots were anticipated to vote in favour in the coming referendum and why there was some scepticism among the Greek Cypriots. I myself hope—I hope that the whole House shares this view—that both Greek and Turkish Cypriots will vote yes to having a future for their country in the European Union.

Keith Vaz: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment that any referendum on the constitution will look at the wider issue of Britain's involvement in Europe and the work that has been done and the progress made in the past seven years. However, may we have an early statement on how that will affect the Government's commitment to a referendum on the euro? Are we now to assume that there will definitely not be a referendum on the euro during this Parliament, or is there a possibility of a referendum on the euro before the referendum on the constitution if the economic tests are met? May we have an early statement on that?

Peter Hain: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early statement on that matter, although I pay tribute to his long advocacy of Britain's entry into the euro, a policy that I respect, and for which he has gained respect. I remind him that the Chancellor announced at the Budget only last month what the situation on the euro was. We will call a referendum if and when the economic circumstances are right, but not before. Given that the Chancellor announced that policy only last month, I do not anticipate another early statement—certainly not next week.

Andrew MacKay: Can the Leader of the House allay my fears that the Prime Minister set an unfortunate precedent yesterday when he said that as and when he loses the EU constitution referendum he will come back to this House, and that further questions will be put and referendums held until he gets a yes vote? Can the Leader of the House assure us that if he loses the vote on the screen today, he will not come back next week with a further motion to try to reverse the decision that we take this afternoon?

Peter Hain: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman as a parliamentarian, but he must not misrepresent what the Prime Minister said. If he looks at Hansard, he will find confirmation that what he has just said bears no resemblance to what the Prime Minister said. We will work hard for a yes vote if we have an agreed constitutional treaty to put to the people of Britain after it has passed through this House. That is our position, because we think that that will be in the national interest. We are not going into a referendum expecting to lose it, and we will fight and work hard to persuade people of our case. It is therefore extremely premature to anticipate any other result.
	On the security screen, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) earlier. The House must decide on that, and although the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) probably takes a different view from mine, there would be serious consequences if the House decided not to proceed with the introduction of a permanent screen. When the right hon. Gentleman hears what I have to say this afternoon about the clear advice from the head of MI5, he will be clear, as I am, that I am willing to accept my responsibilities on the matter. The issue will be whether he is prepared to do the same.

Andrew MacKinlay: Has the Leader of the House noticed that there is no parliamentary dimension to the state visit of President Kwasniewski of Poland? May we have a statement on policies relating to state visits? I gently remind the Leader of the House that in the lifetime of this Labour Government, no head of state has made a state visit and addressed both Houses of Parliament and the Royal Gallery. That is wrong. That should happen, but the practice has been eroded because of the political initiative of having the President of China and George Bush to visit here, although that did not appeal to many parliamentarians. May we return to the situation in which state visits are for the Crown, Parliament and people, so that Parliament can welcome those people without being sidelined by such political initiatives?

Peter Hain: I certainly should not want to see Parliament sidelined, and as a reputable parliamentarian, my hon. Friend would quickly trip me up if that were to happen. I shall certainly bear his points in mind and discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and others, to see where that leaves us.

Peter Lilley: May we have an early debate next week on changes to the constitution? I do not mean those that are proposed to be dealt with by a referendum, but the change introduced unilaterally by the Prime Minister: namely the apparent abolition of Cabinet government. In that debate, may we have an answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on whether the Cabinet was consulted? If it was not, are its members bound by the decision that they did not collectively take, or are they still collectively bound by the previous reverse decision that they had taken? May we have those matters cleared up, or are we to believe that members of the Cabinet are simply the meaningless ciphers that they have long appeared to be to many Opposition Members?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that, having just attended the Cabinet this morning, I can assure him that Cabinet government is alive, well and flourishing, and that that matter was discussed this morning, introduced by the Prime Minister—

Eric Forth: This morning!

Peter Hain: Yes, at this morning's meeting the Prime Minister discussed that matter. I was consulted on the decision, as were other members of the Cabinet, so the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) can be reassured on the matter.

Kate Hoey: I appreciate the remarks that the Leader of the House has made on Zimbabwe, but will he answer the question of when we will have a debate on it in Government time? I thought that that commitment had been given, and it is important that we have the debate soon, especially given that the England and Wales Cricket Board will meet the Government on 4 May to discuss Zimbabwe's tour and its visit to this country, during which it will play at the Oval in my constituency. In view of the deportation of the distinguished sports journalist Mihir Bose from Zimbabwe this week, while he was covering a cricket match, will the Leader of the House try to use his influence on the issue, on which I know that he feels strongly, to hold a proper, full debate as soon as possible?

Peter Hain: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's consistent record on this matter, on which we share the same view. I also share her condemnation of the deportation of Mihir Bose, who is a fine cricket correspondent.
	On whether there should be a debate before or after 4 May, we should await the meeting between the cricket authorities and Ministers, and see what transpires after that. I do not think that the Government's position will change. This is a decision for the cricket authorities, not for the Government, although the Foreign Office and others have given the cricket authorities the advice that they have sought.

Simon Thomas: Will the Leader of the House amend the business for next Thursday, when we are due to debate in Westminster Hall the report of the International Development Committee on the humanitarian situation in the west bank and the Gaza strip, so that, rather than debating that albeit important report, we can debate the foreign policy aspects of what is now happening in Israel and the occupied territories? There have been some worrying changes and pronouncements from the American side over what have been called the new realities on the ground in Palestine. That has huge implications for not only next week's debate but the foreign policy aspects of the Government's position. Would it not therefore be appropriate for next Thursday to be taken over by a debate in the Chamber on the Government's policy on Israel and the occupied territories?

Peter Hain: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and interest in that issue is widely, if not unanimously, shared across the House. I am sure that he will take every opportunity available, while staying strictly in order, to raise the points that he wishes to raise on that matter, because the humanitarian situation reflects the foreign policy failures that there have been multilaterally and internationally in the attempt to resolve the desperate situation of the Palestinians and their relationship with the state of Israel.

Glenda Jackson: When will this House debate in Government time the situation in Iraq? The Prime Minister has said that we have a military and political strategy, and no criticism can be laid against British troops, who continue to conduct themselves with great courage, discipline and dedication. However, it was this House that committed those troops to a war, albeit on a false prospectus. Surely we have a duty to examine precisely what the political strategy is, to ensure that it gives those troops the proper support, and that it can perhaps begin to deliver to the Iraqi people some of those promises so glibly—and at the moment, so emptily—made.

Peter Hain: Despite recognising my hon. Friend's position on Iraq—it is a principled and honest one, but so is the Prime Minister's and the Government's, as she will doubtless agree, even though it differs from hers—I do not accept it. Her reference to glibness is not worthy of her. The Prime Minister made a statement on Iraq on Monday. She had the opportunity to question him then, and there will be further such opportunities. It is a very difficult situation, but she will recognise that everything is being done to try to contain the terrorist attempt to destabilise Iraq's democratic progress.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House say whether he is shortly to publish the Government's response to the Procedure Committee report on debate procedures, the role of the Speaker and private Members' Bills, and their response to its report on resolutions relating to access to this House, which are normally passed at the beginning of every parliamentary Session? Will he find an early opportunity to debate those important reports? The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) mentioned the Independent Monitoring Commission. May we have an early debate on that issue? Perhaps that would enable this House to withdraw the lavish facilities and resources currently made available to Sinn Fein. It is unacceptable to have one rule for the Northern Ireland Assembly and another for this place.

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this question was raised with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland only the other day, and as I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), there will be an opportunity to raise it next week during Northern Ireland questions. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I shall respond very soon, on the Government's behalf, to the Procedure Committee's report on debate procedures. He has repeatedly reminded me of the absence of such a response, as he is entitled to do. The question of public disorder surrounding the House is much more tricky. We are consulting on whether time-consuming legislation is needed, or whether other ways of dealing with the problem can be found. We shall respond to the hon. Gentleman, his Committee and the whole House as soon as we can.

Ian Cawsey: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on local authorities' ethical handling of planning and development? Only yesterday, the Scunthorpe Telegraph broke the story that a business in the area seeking a large and controversial expansion on prime agricultural land, against the interests and views of local people and the parish council, has made a £5,000 donation to the council's ruling Tory group. It is staggering to note that in the council leader's opinion his colleagues need to take advice as to whether they can determine this matter. I doubt whether anybody locally is any doubt as to what should be done. Can the House find time to debate these matters, and to make it clear that planning should be in the interests of the local area? It should not be a question of "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

Peter Hain: Given my hon. Friend's description of the situation, the only response that I can give is to congratulate him and the Scunthorpe Telegraph on bringing this scandal to Commons' attention. I hope that the local communities recognise the seriousness of the situation. Planning decisions should not be subject to political donations; rather, they should be taken according to planning law and according to the interests of local people.

Andrew Robathan: Yesterday, the US Congress heard evidence about the Iraqi oil for food programme and about a list of 270 non-Iraqi names who allegedly benefited from Saddam Hussein's largesse by corrupting that scheme. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week on the implications of the programme for Britain, and in particular for the one British subject named on that list—it is on the internet and available to anybody—so that a criminal investigation can take place and his former friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) can have his name cleared?

Peter Hain: Frankly, I am not sure that those two matters are related, although they might be. As a former Minister with responsibility for Iraq, I remember evidence consistently being produced of Saddam's manipulating the oil for food programme, smuggling out oil and getting hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue—if not billions—to sustain his despotic regime. That is one reason why the situation that had continued for years was not sustainable, and I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that view. This is a serious allegation and the Government, along with the United Nations' authorities, will doubtless want to investigate it urgently and to see what transpires.

David Cairns: As part of the general debate on Europe, will we have time for a specific debate on the comments of EU Commission President Romano Prodi, who said that, should Scotland or Wales leave the United Kingdom, they would also automatically leave the EU and have to re-apply for membership, with no guarantee whatsoever of being re-admitted? So is it not true that Scotland and Wales are better off within the United Kingdom, and that the separatists who peddle the myth of independence in Europe run the risk of doing irreparable damage to the Scottish and Welsh economies and people?

Peter Hain: Absolutely, and if I can get an early debate on that issue, I will be happy to do so. As my hon. Friend rightly confirms, the EU Commission President has made it crystal clear that if Wales and Scotland became independent, as the Scottish and Welsh nationalists advocate, they would immediately forfeit membership of the European Union. That would leave them outside the biggest and richest single market in the industrial world and would bring bankruptcy upon them. The people of Wales ought to know about the futility of that independent strategy.

Martin Smyth: I am still waiting for a response from the Northern Ireland Office that I was supposed to receive by 26 March. Next Monday is 26 April. Is it possible that the office is on a go-slow, thereby keeping pace with those of its civil service colleagues who are protesting about bad wages, or is it just inept?

Peter Hain: The Northern Ireland Office is certainly not inept, and I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman does not really allege that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been extremely busy in recent weeks dealing with the many critical issues with which the hon. Gentleman is very familiar. Now that he has made the point about his correspondence, the office will be well aware of it.

Wayne David: May we have a debate on the recent remarks by Sir John Kerr, who, as Members will know, is a retired senior British diplomat and was the secretary-general on the Convention on the Future of Europe? He said that
	"the convention on the future of Europe had no mandate to lay the foundation of a state, and it did not."
	It drafted a constitutional treaty for Europe, not a constitution for Britain. Does the Leader of the House agree with that view?

Peter Hain: I completely agree with it. Sir John Kerr was a very highly regarded diplomat and permanent secretary to the Foreign Office—I worked with him as a Foreign Office Minister—and he served the Convention on the Future of Europe with great distinction, and I doubt whether we would have successfully drawn up the draft text were it not for his expertise. We should therefore take very seriously the points that he makes, one of which is that this is a constitutional treaty for the whole of Europe. If Britain decided that it wanted to opt out of that treaty, there would be very serious consequences. That would be especially true if the current Leader of the Opposition were in government, and was unwilling to renegotiate or to try to find a way forward to satisfy any criticisms that might have been expressed in a referendum campaign. The reality is that if he were unwilling to discuss such matters, in effect, Britain would be opting out of Europe and out of the new constitutional treaty.

Peter Luff: May we have an early statement on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that the valour and skill of servicemen past and present are properly recognised through the efficient and timely distribution of medals? Is the Leader of the House aware of the deep concern that exists in my constituency and elsewhere at the announcement this week of the closure of the Droitwich Spa medal office, at the busiest time in its history? It is having to cope with many applications for the Suez, or GSM canal-zone, medal, and the increasing number of Iraq medals. Its closure could compromise the efficient distribution of those medals.

Peter Hain: I am very concerned to hear about that. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence and the other Government authorities will want to take close note of what the hon. Gentleman has said and address the problem urgently.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the important issue of bus deregulation outside London? Since its inception there has been a constant fall in bus passenger mileage, and unfortunately that fall has continued since 1997. Having given 42 days' notice, a bus company such as First Mainline, which is in my constituency, is able to withdraw a service to the people of Mosborough. As a result, many hundreds of people, including pensioners, are cut off from their local supermarket, and locally elected representatives have no say whatsoever in the taking of such action.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend will have the chance to apply for such a debate. I am concerned to hear about what he said, as will be the Secretary of State for Transport, not least because the Government have provided more subsidies for bus services than ever before. That is a policy that we intend to stick to. Should the Opposition gain power, that funding would, of course, be reneged upon, because they are determined to cut transport budgets in the first two years of their period of office.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a debate on a matter that should be of grave concern to us all? The publication of the Disability Rights Commission report, "The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People" showed that 86 per cent. of websites were not accessible to disabled people and the majority of the rest were only partially accessible. If we cannot have a debate on that matter, will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made on disabled people's access to Government websites?

Peter Hain: That is a very good point, which I have not heard before, and I am sure that the relevant Minister will want to reflect carefully on what the hon. Gentleman said. I am not sure whether the issue could be dealt with through the forthcoming disability rights Bill, to which the Government are committed, and which will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman has certainly provided a well-made point that has been well taken.

Brian Iddon: May I welcome the Government's announcement on Monday that education maintenance allowances worth £30 a week are to be rolled out nationally from this September? Bolton was one of the 55 pilot local authorities that trialled EMAs: it found increased participation in post-16 education and improved attendance by those who were enrolled. May we soon have a debate on this excellent Government initiative?

Peter Hain: If it were possible and Government business allowed it, I would be happy to arrange such a debate, although my hon. Friend could apply for a private Members' debate in the usual way. I agree that it is a fantastic policy, which will provide real hope and opportunity to thousands of youngsters who are now denied those prospects by leaving school early. As he said, the pilots have shown that the staying on rate is much higher, which is why I find it extraordinary that the Conservative Opposition describe it as a gimmick. My hon. Friend would agree that Conservative Members should be told that his constituents who have benefited from the policy describe it as life opportunity, not a gimmick. The Conservatives should be reminded of that at the next general election.

David Burnside: Northern Ireland questions next Wednesday will not give Members the opportunity to debate or vote on equality of facilities for all hon. Members of the House. Following the £120,000 fine levied on Sinn Fein in the Assembly, which was authorised by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, surely we should have a full debate and an opportunity to vote on the £500,000 allocated by the House last year to two members of the army council—Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams—and their colleagues. They should have no facilities or finance from the House until they come in and swear or affirm an oath of loyalty as other right hon. and hon. Members of the House do.

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the independent report referred not only to Sinn Fein, as he pointed out, but to the Progressive Unionist party—

David Burnside: It does not have Members here.

Peter Hain: I acknowledge that that party is not represented here, as the hon. Gentleman said. He has made his point.

Chris Bryant: May we have an urgent debate—preferably instead of one of the footling Opposition day debates over the next fortnight—on the precise consequences of the UK voting against the constitutional treaty? Is it not the case that if we voted against it, any Government—Conservative or Labour—would have to start renegotiating another treaty with EU colleagues? If that Government chose to adopt a line and could not persuade a single other European country to accept it, and then decided to act unilaterally, it would consign Britain to the sidelines of Europe, which would be bad for our economy and our country's future.

Peter Hain: Indeed, which is why I would welcome the opportunity to have a debate. I invite the shadow Leader of the House to table an Opposition motion on the subject in order to defend his party's policy on that matter. The consequence would be exactly as my hon. Friend says. If we went into a referendum on the basis of rejecting the whole idea of bringing together the existing European treaties into a single constitutional treaty, we would be left saying to the other 24 member states that they should walk away and do their own thing. If that happened, we would be left outside, on a ticket out of
	the European Union. That is the Opposition's policy, and they will be reminded of it in the coming months running up to the referendum.

John Mann: Following this morning's revelation that an estimated £30 million—perhaps much more—has been deducted by solicitors in various guises from miners' compensation, may we have an urgent debate or statement next week? We should discuss, in particular, whether the Government ever envisaged that miners, their widows and families should receive anything less than 100 per cent. of their industrial injury compensation.

Peter Hain: As a former energy Minister, I can be absolutely clear that it was always expressly understood that, under the terms of the court judgment and the Government's compensation scheme, the costs of legal fees incurred would be borne by the scheme, not by miners themselves, retired miners or their families. Unless a separate agreement has been negotiated—as in the case of the National Union of Miners in Nottinghamshire—and such an express agreement falls within the scheme, what my hon. Friend mentioned is unacceptable and, I would suggest, falls outside the rules of the scheme. No miners should have their compensation docked in that way by unscrupulous solicitors.

NOTHING

NOTHING

BILL PRESENTED

Age-related Payments

Mr. Secretary Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Malcolm Wicks, presented (under Standing Order No. 50 (Procedure upon bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision for payments by the Secretary of State to persons over the age of 70; and to enable provision to be made for payments by the Secretary of State to persons over the age of 60. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 92].

Points of Order

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise a point of order in advance of the debate. The debate that we are about to commence is on an extremely serious issue: the erection of a screen, separating us from our constituents and our electorates, which has cost £500,000. We have no papers on it. The Government tell us that it is such a serious issue—the security position being so demanding—that the screen had to be erected in advance of the House having an opportunity to debate the matter.
	I do not see how we can have a proper debate and discuss the serious issues that have to be addressed without being able to meet in private. Some of the points that I would want to raise in an attempt to assess the balance of risk and the nature of the threat that we face in the Chamber might, if given wider currency, only play into the hands of our enemies.
	I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, believing that there is a case for the House to meet in private to debate the issues, provided that we can be assured that Members attending—as I look around, I see mostly responsible right hon. and hon. Members—would not reveal any sensitive information; otherwise, I fear that if we asked the Leader or Deputy Leader of the House to explain the security advice given to the authorities, on which we are invited to rely, they would say simply that they could not provide that information because it was too sensitive. In that case, how could we have a proper debate? Before I formally move that the House sit in private, it might be helpful if other right hon. and hon. Members shared their views on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Before any hon. Member rises to speak, I remind the hon. Gentleman that a memorandum is available in the Vote Office. Also, I must correct him in one respect: it was not the Government who brought this matter forward, but the House of Commons Commission, of which I am Chairman. I remind the House that I made a statement on this matter. One of the purposes of the temporary screen is to allow the public to be present, while affording us the protection that we desire. It is entirely up to the House as to whether it meets in private. The hon. Gentleman will know that I must put any motion to that effect before the House immediately. However, he will recall that not so long ago I had to clear the Public Gallery for a day because of misbehaviour. That was a sad day, for me and for the House.

Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth): the present circumstances of the terrorist threat are different from any previously experienced in our country's history. This is a very different scenario. There are questions to which I want detailed answers, but it is not appropriate for me to ask them, or to require the Leader of the House to answer them, in an open forum. We may feel that our democracy is under challenge, but the security available to hon. Members, the staff of the House and visiting members of the public must have primacy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call the Leader of the House.

Peter Hain: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that what I have to say will help the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). As they both know, this matter went before the House of Commons Commission. As I hope to explain shortly, it was also referred to senior Privy Councillors. The consensus to go ahead was reached on an all-party basis. I shall certainly aim to answer as many questions as I can, and I will make very clear, in graphic terms, the security advice that we received. I think that that should be done in open session. It is important both that people understand why the House is taking this decision, and that the House has the opportunity to explain matters to the public. We should not shut them out.

Oliver Heald: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I confirm that the Commission decided the matter. The shadow Cabinet was not consulted, and neither was the Cabinet, I believe. The matter was dealt with on an all-party basis in the Commission. Secondly, I agree that, given the interest that people have in this matter, we should hold our debate in such a way that they are able to know the arguments being deployed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to take further points of order on this matter. If certain hon. Members feel that we should meet in private, the best way to proceed is to settle the matter now; otherwise, we are in danger of pursuing the debate by means of points of order.

Gerald Howarth: May I first thank you, Mr. Speaker, for correcting me and advising that this is not a Government but a House of Commons Commission matter? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it has been discussed by a very small number of hon. Members. Therefore, to assist the House and expedite the debate, I propose that we sit in private. We should be able to speak freely, without fear of betraying information that should not be in the public domain.
	I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (motion to sit in private):—
	The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 211.

Question accordingly negatived.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not be aware that during the Division, Whips from both sides of the House were seeking to organise, instruct and guide Members on how to vote. As I thought that we had already established that this was strictly a House of Commons matter, is there anything you can do, Mr. Speaker, to protect innocent MPs from being badgered by Government and Opposition Whips on a House of Commons matter? Surely, something must be done to protect the House and its Members from such gratuitous intervention.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Let me reply to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
	The right hon. Gentleman is right: it is a House of Commons matter, but Whips like to tell people what to do—that is the nature of the beast. I can assure him that they were acting in a private capacity.

Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you think that, as one of the intentions of the vote was to ensure that the debate gets no publicity at all, had we moved to sit in private it would have got more publicity?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have a point.

Menzies Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If Whips were acting in a personal capacity, should that not result in a deduction of one day's salary in respect of all those who receive public funds?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. When I was in engineering, there was a practice called quartering workers—but that was not a day's salary.

Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was acting as a Whip in a personal capacity, so does that mean I will get paid?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Andrew MacKay: Further to the serious and genuine point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), Mr. Speaker. When I voted in the No Lobby, two Government Whips were at the desk telling us when the next votes were likely to be. In such circumstances, it is important that, when the Leader of the House moves the motion, he again assures us that the vote is genuinely free—I did not have that impression when I was going through the Lobby.

Mr. Speaker: Not even I know when the next vote is likely to be, so perhaps a Whip will tell me, as I shall have to come back to the Chair.

Security Screen

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the installation of a permanent security screen between the Chamber and the Strangers' Gallery.

Mr. Speaker: I reiterate that I have agreed that both amendments will be considered.

Peter Hain: First, I shall respond to some of the points that have been made. I confirm that copies of an explanatory memorandum are available in the Vote Office; it includes a photograph showing what the new permanent screen would look like, and I think that Members will find it unobtrusive. I assure the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) that the vote will genuinely be a free one, and there is no Government policy on the matter.

Andrew MacKay: Tell your Whips.

Peter Hain: The orderly business of the House, in the event of a surprise motion such as the one that was moved earlier, is a different matter.

Gerald Howarth: I hope that the Leader of the House is not going to suggest that the piece of paper available from the Vote Office provides a basis for a proper discussion in the House. It contains a description of the visual impact, ventilation and acoustics, and some poor-quality pictures, but it is not fair to suggest that it is a basis on which we can assess the nature of the risk that precipitated advice from the security services and warranted extraordinarily swift action by the Leader of the House and the Commission in advance of a debate in the House. The public need to know that we do not have the information before us. That document is not information.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman may not think that the information is adequate, but to say that it is not information is simply incorrect. I think that the pictures are rather good, and show the situation quite clearly.

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Peter Hain: No, I shall not take any more interventions, as I should like to explain the background. The hon. Gentleman may find that helpful in understanding the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves.
	Two motions on House business are before us this afternoon. The first deals with security, and the second, which will be moved by my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, deals with the welcome that we give our visitors. For the first time, there will be a proper reception facility that makes our visitors feel at home in their Parliament.
	The temporary security screen that Members can see at the front of Strangers Gallery has been installed with the agreement of the House of Commons Commission in the light of clear security advice at the highest level. The House will appreciate that it is difficult to debate that advice in a way that does not endanger our security, but I can give the factors that did not contribute to the decision. The decision was not made to shield the House from the protest shouts that we have experienced from time to time, most recently over Iraq, which can still be heard through the glass. To those who say that the screen is about protecting senior Ministers, I point out that the Prime Minister and other individuals are already subject to extensive security protection.
	The installation of the screen is about protecting the whole Chamber—the very centre of our democracy—from terrorist attack. Terrorists use a range of weapons undreamt of a few years ago, many of which are not always apparent or easily detected, and we have to respond to that changed threat. We cherish the accessible relationship that we enjoy with our electors, which is a vital part of our democratic life. Indeed, we are reinforcing it with the better reception facilities that are the subject of the second motion. Over the years, however, we have had to introduce successive security procedures, including searches on entry and, more recently, armed police guards. None of those measures was subject to the formal approval of the House, but the present measure rightly is.
	Acting on clear intelligence, which she explained to me, the director general of the Security Service made an unequivocal recommendation that the screen be installed. I felt that I had a duty to bring that matter to you, Mr. Speaker, and to fellow members of the House of Commons Commission. The House would expect no less. Commission members received the same background and recommendations from the director general and considered the matter in great detail and at great length, as did the Serjeant at Arms. Consultations were held on Privy Council terms with senior Members of the House. This was not, I stress, a decision lightly taken.

Si�n Simon: Instead of installing a screen, why do we not take guns from people before they come in?

Peter Hain: Guns would already be taken from visitors under the normal security procedures. It is not possible to bring a gun into the Chamber or the Houseat least, not without a serious breach of securityas security procedures are in place. We are talking not about guns but about other terrorist threats to our security.

Nigel Evans: What consultation has the Leader of the House had with other Parliaments? I remember that there was a shooting once in the Spanish Parliament in Madrid, but I do not believe that there is a screen there. I do not believe that the United States Congress has a glass screen either.

Peter Hain: Congress, I believe, and certainly Capitol hill, were recently subject to serious anthrax attack. When the hon. Gentleman hears what I am about to say, he will understand that that is the sort of thing that is involved. He will know that the Dail has a security screen.

Andrew MacKay: It is the only one with a screen.

Peter Hain: That may well be the case, but let us make some progress[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the House of the House speak. Members will have an opportunity to rebut his argument later.

Peter Hain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Claire Ward: I understand that the risk is not so much from guns being brought into the Strangers Gallery but from chemical or biological weapons, as I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree. Can he explain how we would increase security if we cannot stop somebody bringing chemical weapons into the Parliament building? The screen may prevent people from throwing things from the Gallery into the Chamber, but if our security outside the Chamber is not sufficient, it will not prevent them from using them anywhere else in the building. In addition to putting up a security screen what is being done to increase and improve security in the rest of Parliament?

Peter Hain: It is to address such matters that, as I shall explain, a major comprehensive security review will shortly be carried out by the security services and the Metropolitan police commissioner. The fact that everything cannot be addressed at the same time does not mean that we should not reduce the risk in the Chamber, the heart of our democracy. I shall explain in a moment how progress has been made on that issue, but first I must make it clear that I did not consult the Prime Minister or the Cabinet on the decision. This was, and still is, a matter for the House, not the Government.
	I regret the need for the screen, but I believe that it is necessary and in the best interests of our democracy. To ignore the advice that we received would have been irresponsible, putting at risk not only Members but our staff, visitors and the very functioning of our parliamentary democracy. I congratulate those responsible for installing and overseeing installation of the temporary screen over the Easter recess. Its swift and efficient installation has meant that we have been able to maintain, unbroken, our cherished tradition of public access to our proceedings.

Judy Mallaber: One of my worries about access concerns the increasing difficulty of arranging tours for our constituents, given the changes in sitting hours, which I support. One proposal was to fit a glass window at the back of the Gallery so that it would be easier for people just to walk through. Will the proposals for a screen at the front of the Gallery for security reasons mean that we are no longer able to look at other proposals for increasing access for our constituents so that they can come and view us in the Chamber?

Peter Hain: No, not at all. On Monday, I went up to the Gallery to look out from behind the screen and see the view that visitors will have. I pursued with House officials the question of whether it would indeed be possible to return to the matter, and I was satisfied that it would be. Arguably, it would be easier to return to the original proposal, which was considered a year or so ago, but not taken up. My hon. Friend is welcome to pursue the matter, and I am certainly willing to look at it again.
	I hope and believe that Members and visitors alike will find the temporary structure unobtrusive. On Monday, I sat in Strangers Gallery behind the screen. The view is clear and the sound very good. Indeed, I am advised that it is better than before. While the screen is functional, however, it cannot be said to be fully in keeping with the architecture of the Chamber, and its permanent replacement will meet much better the concerns of those responsible for our architectural heritage. As I have said, an explanatory memorandum is available in the Vote Office showing clearly what the permanent structure will look like. In the event of a positive vote this afternoon, it is planned that work will take place in summer 2005.

Jim Knight: I am interested to learn that my right hon. Friend sat in Strangers Gallery behind the screen this week. Yesterday, a guest of mine attended Prime Minister's questions, and he told me that the sound feed filters out all the extraneous noise that many people enjoysome of us may be ashamed of itand which is a feature of the occasion. Has my right hon. Friend considered how we can reflect the atmosphere of the House for people in Strangers Gallery if an acoustic barrier has been created by the screen?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is one of the issues that we will seek to address in the event of a permanent screen being agreed. We neededI will explain whyto put up a temporary screen quickly, or else we would have advertised the problem before we had provided security protection for the House. I believe that people will understand that.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Leader of the House mentioned architectural merit. The photographs show a very modern screen. If he wants something that fits the character of the House, should we not go back to the sort of screen that existed before 1948before the bombingat the Ladies Gallery end, which was a grille that no one could see through?

Peter Hain: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is making a serious suggestion. The point of the proposition is to provide a screen that does not impair sight or the experience of being a visitor to the Chamber. I think he will find that it will do that.

Patrick McLoughlin: I much regret the necessity for the screen, but if that is the advice that we are given, we must follow it. Will the Leader of the House deal with access to the east and west Special Galleries? The present screen covers only the Strangers area, but the Special Galleries are not covered. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us how those areas will still be accessible by Members' guests.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and seeking clarification. It may be convenient for me to deal with it now. Access to the Special Gallery will still be available to Members, who will be able to seek tickets for two guests from the Serjeant in the normal way. What will be different is that although an application to the Serjeant may still be made in the usual way, Members will be required to testify that guests are known to them personally and that they vouch for the conduct of such guests. In the event of such conduct being unacceptable, Members will have to answer to the House for it. The procedures have been changed, the tickets look rather different, and the extra protection about which the hon. Gentleman sought clarification is operating.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: I will take one more question on that point, but I must make progress or Members in all parts of the House will not have the full picture revealed to them in order to debate it.

Eric Forth: When the Leader of the House says that Members can authorise people to come in front of the screen, will that be only Members who have taken the Oath?

Peter Hain: I assume so. I will take advice on that and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. Since the Speaker is nodding to help me out, I think the right hon. Gentleman has the answer to his question.

David Burnside: Further to that point, can the Leader of the House confirm my information that the only serious breach in the Palace of Westminster took place before the 1979 general election, resulting in the death of the right hon. Member for Abingdon, the late Airey Neave? That involved the misuse of an officially registered security pass to gain access to the Palace of Westminster. Will the Leader of the House give some time in his statement to the procedures that will be tightened up for the issuing of security passes, given that those who receive such passes do not go through the security screen on the perimeter of the Palace of Westminster?

Peter Hain: I will, indeed. That will be the subject of the wide-ranging security review that the Speaker has ordered, with my support and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 12,900 security passes are issued in the Palace of Westminster, excluding Members and Peers, so it is an issue.
	May I make a minor correction, or a major one, to his point? The murder of Airey Neave was not the only breach of security. In 1970, a CS gas canister was thrown into the Chamber, requiring evacuation. We have moved on, as I will explain shortly, to a different level of terrorist threat, which is not necessarily as visible as a CS gas canister. We saw what happened in 1970. The procedures put in place, with airport-type security checks before one can enter the Palace, are intended to prevent such incidents, but we face a different problem in the case of terrorist weapons that are not so visible.
	There will be Members who question the value for money of both temporary and permanent structures. The temporary structure has cost 600,000; the proposed permanent structure 1.3 million. I appreciate that that will seem a considerable sum to our constituents, but I believe it is money that must be spent. There are many constraints on carrying out major works in the Palace.
	Although the debate focuses on the security of the Chamber, the screen is only one element of heightened security precautions throughout the parliamentary estate. As I said, a thorough review of security is also being carried out by the security services and the Metropolitan police.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: I will make a little progress, then I will give way.
	We must not forget our responsibility towards everybody who works here. This is a high priority for the House administration, and detailed security advice is being given to all House staff, together with briefings for Members and Members' staff. I stress that the security screen has been installed following the unanimous decision of the House of Commons Commission, with the support of the informal joint committee on securityan all-party decision. This is a House matter, I repeat, not a party or Government matter. The defence of Parliament against terrorist threat is not a party matter, but one that we must all have regard to.

Chris Bryant: Immediately after 11 September, a group of children from my constituency was due to come down to visit Parliament. Their parents were so nervous about the security aspects for their childrennot about my security, but about their children's security when they came herethat they decided to cancel the trip. When we are putting together security measures, is it not just as important to consider the security of members of the public who come into the building? It is one of the postcard buildings that are most dangerous.

Peter Hain: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point.

Hugo Swire: Does the Leader of the House agree that this is the appropriate time in the ongoing review of the security of the Palace of Westminster to address once and for all the ownership of Parliament square, and to look to ways of bringing that within the parliamentary estate and the world heritage site? It is my contention and that of others that one cannot properly secure what is inside if one has not secured what is outside.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The matter has been discussed with the Security ServiceI myself have discussed itand it will no doubt form an important part of the review.

Christopher Chope: Can the Leader of the House explain why there is no need for a security screen in the Chamber of the House of Lords?

Peter Hain: I do not know that that will always be the case, but the Security Service did not recommend a screen in the House of Lords. [Interruption.] Let me be frank, as I have been throughout the debate. The hon. Gentleman asked an important question; I will give him an important answer. Security in the House of Lords is being tightened, and the whole parliamentary estate is the subject of the joint review by the security services and Metropolitan police commissioner that are now being undertaken. When I explain the situation, the hon. Gentleman will see why we have taken the course we have, if I may be allowed to complete my points.
	I had hoped to address the House in general terms, as I have just done. But the amendments leave me with no alternative but to be much more specific about the consequences if they were passed. The Security Service recommendation for a screen is based on an analysis of the threat vulnerability and the impact of possible chemical or biological attack in the Strangers Gallery. In recent years there have been several indicators that al-Qaeda and associated networks have shown the intent and capability to mount attacks using toxic chemical and biological materials. Using such materials in confined spaces is a good way of maximising impact.
	If we want a House open to the public, as I do, we have to follow all reasonable security procedures. No security procedure is infalliblewe saw that with the Greenpeace protest only last month. The real issue is reducing risks and taking sensible precautions where we can. If right hon. or hon. Members wish to ignore the unequivocal recommendation and advice of the security services, that is a matter for them, but there will be consequences for all who take that view. There will be consequences not only for Members of this House, but for the Doorkeepers and security staff who serve the Chamber and civil servants in the Box. [Interruption.] We are all subject to the same air system. There will also be consequences for Clerks and visitors to the Gallery. This is a matter not only of self-protection, but of protecting all those in the Chamber, whether or not they are Members.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: As to additional security for our visitors, the risk to the people sitting behind the screen is immeasurably heightened by the fact that it is there, rather than otherwise.

Peter Hain: If the purpose of an al-Qaeda cell was to throw a phial into the Chamber in Question Time, for example, when those on both Front Benches are present every week at a predictable, advertised time, what would be the point of going into the Strangers Gallery and throwing it among people there? There would be no point at all in doing that, so that is an absurd point, if I may say so.

Andrew Robathan: We are discussing a serious matter, and I do not want the debate to become heated. In talking about chemical and biological agents, did the security services advise the Leader of the House that the problem with such agents, as people have known since attempts were made to use gas in the trenches in the first world war, is dissemination to the target? If somebody dropped a chemical or biological agent down on the Floor of the House, it might or might not kill somebody. Such agents cannot be disseminated easily as they disseminate through air currents, and that is the way in which such things are done.

Peter Hain: I do wonder at some of the questions that I have been asked.
	Let me spell out in the plainest terms what the consequences would be if the House decided to support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). If an al-Qaeda group managed to throw a phial of anthrax or ricin into the Chamber or, even worse, if a suicide agent released the substance without anybody noticingwe have been advised that that is quite feasiblethe particles would immediately begin spreading throughout the Chamber. Because of the way in which air flows work, total contamination could occur within minutes. Decontamination procedures would then be activated. [Interruption.] I have heard the same shouts as everybody else. Everybodynot only Memberswould be locked in and decontaminated before being allowed to leave.
	It is for hon. Members to decide whether they are prepared to take that risk. I am not, the Speaker is not and the House of Commons Commission is not, and the House must now decide whether it is. I commend the motion to the House.

Oliver Heald: As you know, Mr. Speaker, members of the House of Commons Commission support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. However, for myself and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches, this House of Commons matter is subject to the usual free vote, so my views are my own and are to be taken as such.
	By far the most important concern of the House of Commons Commission in the relatively short time for which I have been a member has been the safety of this centre of our democracy, the people who work here and visitors to Parliament. We all have a duty to ensure that our free democracy can continue to function as it should by allowing the public proper access, but at the same time we have other duties. It is important that we make it as hard as possible for terrorists to fulfil their objectives, that we protect the thousands of people who work here, and that we do our best to support the reasonable requests of those who do so much to keep us safe.
	There is a tension between the needs of security and the openness of a free Parliament, and recent events have made that tension greater. I warmly welcome, and I supported and pressed for, the thoroughgoing review of security throughout the parliamentary estate that is being carried out by the Security Service and the Metropolitan police with the personal backing of the director general and the commissioner, and I hope that it will be completed very quickly.
	I am grateful to a number of my hon. Friends who have brought to me wide-ranging security issues relating to this building and the way in which we do our business. They include issues to do with passes and so on. I have written to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Leader of the House, setting out all the concerns so that they can be taken into account in the review.

James Gray: All of us in this Chamber and elsewhere are entirely with my hon. Friend in seeking maximum security for people who work here and for our visitors. No one denies that that is correct. What the Leader of the House failed to do, however, is explain even once why on earth that enormously expensive white elephant of a screen improves that situation even one jot. Will my hon. Friend kindly tell us not that we want people to be safer, but why that screen will make them safer?

Oliver Heald: I think that three factors together pose the great risk, and the screen is a measureit is a limited one, and it is not the only one that will be neededthat addresses them. First, nowadays, weapons are available that were not previously available, including powders and gases that are not as easy to detect as other weapons on coming into the House. Secondly, whereas for many years terrorists and those who were a threat would act with their own safety taken into account, that is not the case nowadays. There are suicide bombers, and the amount of time available to deal with such a threat is minimal. Thirdly, we are one of the very few Parliaments that has a predictable pattern of behaviour[Interruption.] We may not be predictable on every issue, but we have an agenda, week after week

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: And a timetable.

Oliver Heald: Indeed, but do not mention programming.
	Obviously, we have questions to the Prime Minister every week, but there are quite a lot of other occasions that are very predictable. Taking the three factors together, it seems to me that there could be a very high risk. Rather than taking my word for it, let us bear in mind the fact that we were able to cross-examine the head of the Security Service at great length about these issues, as were many senior colleagues in this place. She convinced me that there was a very serious threat, and many colleagues reached the same view.

Andrew MacKay: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Heald: Before I give way to my right hon. Friend, I say to him that he was offered that opportunity, and I think that it is a great pity that he was not able to take it up.

Andrew MacKay: I was on parliamentary business abroad, so there was a perfectly good reason why I did not attend.
	My hon. Friend was uncharacteristically evasive in responding to the perfectly reasonable questions of our hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said earlier that we had a huge responsibilityof course we doto the thousands of people who come here, including staff, but neither he nor the Leader of the House has explained why that wretched screen and its possible successor will help those people. All that they are doing is cutting us off from the people whom we represent, which is quite wrong. Will he now try to have a second go?

Oliver Heald: I should like, I hope in a pleasant and respectful way, to correct my right hon. Friend on one point: our guests will be able to go into the Galleries in front of the screen. However, hon. Members will be subject to the new regime that has been described by the Leader of the House.
	The point that I wish to make about safety in the Strangers Gallery is very straightforward. If a member of a terrorist organisation were looking for a target, they might think that they could aim at a good one by trying to hit the Government, the alternative Government and the outside-chance Government all in one go. The average terrorist would not think it much of a ploy to throw a chemical agent on himself and innocent visitors.

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend knows that I support the security measures. The debate is very frank, so I imagine that some of members of the public sitting behind the screen must feel pretty uncomfortable. We have a duty to improve security, and, given the comments of the Leader of the House about the overall review, I hope that resources will not be a problem. Resources to protect the House at weekends and on non-sitting days are already a concern, not least because of the recent incursion on the clock tower. I hope that my hon. Friend will support a thorough review from the Front Bench, so that the people who sit behind the screen do not feel that it is a division of the sheep and the goats.

Oliver Heald: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend has detailed knowledge of those matters from her time as shadow Leader of the House, and I included points that she raised with me in my letter about the review to Mr. Speaker. We must take all necessary measures to keep this place open to the public, so that they can see their democracy in action, but at the same time we must not give terrorists the opportunity to hit one of the most important political and democratic institutions in the world.

Chris Bryant: The shadow Leader of the House is generous in giving way. If we took down the screen, we would effectively issue an invitation to terrorists such as al-Qaeda to use the precise practices that we are discussing.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his customary way.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend know whether the security review will extend without this Chamber and into the Committee Rooms? The meetings of Select Committees, Statutory Instrument Committees and so forth are not only well advertised but open to members of the public. From time to time, those Rooms contain quite a selection of parliamentarians and staff. What protective measures will be taken in Westminster Hall and all the Committee Rooms in this House, and in Portcullis House?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend reinforces a good point that he made earlier. We must examine not only this Chamber, but every part of the parliamentary estate. His advice about examining vantage points outside the parliamentary estate that may pose a threat is sensible and wise. He has mentioned that point to me before, and I included it in my correspondence with Mr. Speaker and the Leader of the House.

David Burnside: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Heald: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way a great deal. I know that many hon. Members want to speak, and I want to give them an opportunity to do so.
	We have the screen not because hon. Members want to be protected; it is a response to a clear threat to the principal institution of our democracy. It is not a single response to the threat, and security is rightly being increased elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster and other parliamentary buildings. Even as the review continues, we should make any necessary changes to enhance security.

David Burnside: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Heald: In a moment.
	The Leader of the House mentioned a welcome measure to improve pass security. If one applies to the Serjeant at Arms for a ticket to the Under Gallery and there is space, the Serjeant at Arms requires a signed statement that one knows the guest and that one vouches for them personally, and I also welcome that change.

David Burnside: Does my hon. Friend agree that terrorists act for political reasons? One of the consequences of the screen is that terrorists may affect the outcome of an electionthe recent attack in Madrid was carried out for political reasons to make a political impact. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we should set up physical barriers between the Government and the Opposition, who are potentially the next Government, in an election campaign? If there were physical barriers between the Government and the Opposition, there would be no public meetings, and my hon. Friend is embarking on that route.

Oliver Heald: This example is slightly different, but it contains many of the same issues: I remember going to Conservative party conferences in the days before heavy security, and it was marvellous to have free interplay with others, which we cannot achieve now. After the 1984 bombing, it was right to introduce security measures, but party conferences still take place. I would be one of the last people to interfere with the traditional operation of our democracy. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House agrees.
	As far as elections are concerned, we must take the necessary risks in order to go out and do what we do in our democracy, but we should not take unnecessary risks in circumstances that do not really stop us from doing what we do as politicians.

Several hon. Members: rose

Oliver Heald: I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, and I do not want to use all the time.
	Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm in his winding-up speech that, although permission for a permanent screen is being sought, if the security situation changes, that decision is not irrevocable, the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee will continue to monitor the situation, and he will take a close, personal interest in the matter?

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend and the Leader of the House have not explained why we should not vote for the amendment; will my hon. Friend kindly do so?

Oliver Heald: The threat is immediate, and we need the screen now. We can debate whether the screen should be made permanent, but the amendment does not address that point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Leader of the House made the staggering comment that 12,500 people hold passes for this place, excluding Members of Parliament and peers. Those people are subject to minimal security checks when they enter this place, and it would be easy for somebody to steal one of those passes. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, will my hon. Friend raise that point as part of the general security review?

Oliver Heald: That point is strong and important. Pass security should be tighter, and the matter is being addressed even before the review is completed. I would not choose to change this building unless I thought it necessary, but sadly I do.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the shadow Leader of the House.
	I have just returned from the United States, where I visited ground zero in New York earlier this week. The people in New York are not maudlin and looking backwards, and they are getting on with their lives. One of my friends was involved in the Lockerbie disaster, and another was in the World Trade Centre when it was destroyedmy first friend died; my second friend got out of the World Trade Centre. I have visited both the garden of remembrance in Lockerbie and ground zero, but I am not taking a maudlin look back at the events of 11 September.
	When I was in the United States, the big issue was a commission of inquiry to look into how it came about that aeroplanes could be flown into the World Trade Centre, killing 2,800 people, leaving thousands of other people with their lives permanently destroyed, and leaving surviving dependents asking a number of questions. How had this come about? Could it have been prevented? Who knew what? That commission is so important that it obliged the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to come before it to answer questions about what she knew, and in the week ahead the President and Vice-President of the United States will be asked what they knew. The relatives and dependents of those who died, who are there to listen to the proceedings, ask: what could have been done to save our own? It has been argued that a 16-year-old student with hindsight is a greater man than the President of the United States. Today, we are able to ensure that there is no need for hindsight by avoiding an untoward event.

Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stuart Bell: I should like to get on a little.
	Of course no one wishes to separate us from our constituents, but we have to take into account the reality of the world in which we live. We know that we are unable to defend every installation in the country, but we are able to seek to defend what we used to call, and should still call, the mother of Parliaments. This is the essence of our democracy, known and recognisable in every country of the world. The objective of global-reach terrorism is to attack and destroy democracy. To have an untoward and unhappy event here, successful or otherwise, would not only taint our democracy, but the principle of democracy throughout the world.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stuart Bell: No.
	As the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House said, a thorough-going investigation of the entire parliamentary estate will include Committee Rooms, passes and security at every level, and will be taken with the utmost seriousness. Nevertheless, we have to keep our eye on the ball and stay focused. At Pearl harbour, the Americans lost all their combat aircraft because they were lined up so as to defend them against sabotage from Japanese on the island, but they were of course destroyed from the air. This is not about separating ourselves from the people who wish to see us, but about protecting this democracy of ours. We make this major decision in the interests not only of our democracy, but of our successors. No Parliament binds its successors, but the decisions that we make

Colin Challen: rose

James Gray: rose

Stuart Bell: Let me just finish this point. We are talking about whether and how we can protect future generations of Members of Parliament, future Governments and future Oppositions.

James Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman of the view that when this Chamber was destroyed during the second world war, British democracy was irreparably damaged?

Stuart Bell: This Chamber was destroyed in what was clearly a war. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should be subject to a biological attack and see our Members and staff destroyed.

James Gray: We would sit in Church house.

Stuart Bell: That is a remarkable comment. Having been in this House for 22 years, I am struck by the frivolity of some of the questions that were put to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House. I wish to keep this debate on a serious level by discussing how we are able to protect our people, our Members of Parliament and our Government from the kind of attacks that we are seeing worldwide. I could bring a map before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which shows terrorism with its global reach in all the countries of the worldeven in Saudi Arabia, which is not a democracy as we understand it. These terrorists are no respecters of persons. To attack and destroy this House would be a major gain for them and a massive blow to our democracy and to democracies around the world.

Colin Challen: In talking about this Chamber, does my hon. Friend envisage that this siege-like situation will continue in perpetuity? He did not cite examples of any other Chambers that have fallen prey to the particular kind of attack that appears to be envisaged here. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for us to consider these measures after the sarin gas attacks on the underground in Japan.

Stuart Bell: We are talking about the threat of an imminent and serious attack. I make this speech as a member of the House of Commons Commission, where I have met, with other members, the head of our security services and the head of our Metropolitan police. Through the Speaker, we issued an invitation to all Privy Councillors to come and listen to what they had to say.
	As for other Parliaments, two weeks ago I was in the National Assembly in Paris: there are the most stringent regulations for getting into that building.

James Gray: There is no screen there.

Stuart Bell: It might happen. I have been in the Dail and saw no difficulty in its proceedings.
	We are talking about how, through this investigation and analysis of the parliamentary estate, we protect our democracy, right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament, and staffeveryone in this building.

Angela Browning: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is not like a bombing in world war two. I have just taken at random an item from my handbag, compliments of Este Lauderone of several that I could have picked out. This would not have been removed from me, even with the most detailed screening of my handbag, but it could contain anything sufficient to kill everybody in this Chamber and in the Galleries. As a former member of the Commission of this House, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is its duty to listen to the expert advice that it is given and to implement it.

Stuart Bell: I take the hon. Lady's point. There is no mechanism or screening procedure that finds chemical and biological weapons. Nothing in this world could have prevented the anthrax being taken into Washingtonno such machine is available.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: rose

Stuart Bell: My hon. and learned Friend, who is about to intervene, would face an interesting situation in years to come if there were to be an untoward event in this Chamber followed by a commission of inquiry to ask who was responsible. He would not be the Queen's Counsel on that commission, because he would have to disqualify himself on the grounds of the early-day motion that he has tabled. As the Leader of the House said, it is a matter for each and every one of us to take our responsibilities seriously this afternoonnot to spend our time trying to make various points, but to focus on the matter that is before us.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many targets in this place and that many of us are at risk? Our visitors are at risk because they are part of the democratic process, and an attack on them would be an attack on the democratic process. We, too, are at risk; but if we protect ourselves, we increase, by a direct algebraic equation, the risk to them. Those people up there have absolutely none of the protection that we have arrogated to ourselves. That is an extremely offensive way in which to deal with our people.

Stuart Bell: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the attacks of global-reach terrorism on democracy are attacks on us all and that we all may be subject to terrorist attack by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We have talked about the parliamentary estate and commission of inquiry that we shall hold, with a full investigation of how we can protect people who wish to visit. However, we must consider how we can protect Government and Opposition Members and Members of Parliament generally. We are here to make decisions about how to protect not a future Wembley stadium, but the House

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Us.

Stuart Bell: How can my hon. and learned Friend be so selfish as to sit here talking about himself? We are talking about other Members of Parliament and their familiesthose who might be left behind. How selfish can one get?

Si�n Simon: Are not we saying to people, You can't throw a bag of anthrax on us, but you're welcome to come into Central Lobby and swing it around and kill as many Back Benchers as you like?

Peter Hain: The air supply is the same.

Si�n Simon: A screen does not work if the air supply is the same. It is pointless.

Stuart Bell: No one in his right mind wishes anyone to come into the building with anthrax and murder anyone. As I said earlier, a full inquiry will cover the entire parliamentary estate, including the House of Lords. The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House also made that point.
	We must not confuse concepts. We are here today to decide whether there should be a permanent screenI emphasise again that no Parliament binds its successorsto protect us and our democracy. Of course, I respect and wish to protect members of the public who come here at this time, and there are other means of being in touch with constituents, such as by letter, fax, e-mail and television, which anyone in the country can see.

Andrew MacKay: The hon. Gentleman stated that there is no way that security can spot anthrax and related weapons of mass destruction. If that is the case, terrorists could go to Central Lobby, Portcullis House and elsewhere and use them. The Leader of the House has told us that the air system flows through the House and we would thus all be at risk. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) must therefore be right that the only purpose of the screen is to protect us. There is no other sensible reason for it.

Stuart Bell: We are protecting not us but our democracy, our Government, our Opposition and our image as the mother of Parliaments to which other Parliaments look up and other democracies aspire. We are looking to prevent a victory for terrorism that would be perceived as such worldwide. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) says that the screen is an obstruction to or erosion of the relationship between our constituents and us and a victory for criminal terrorist organisations. He considers raising a screen a victory for terrorism. That is remarkable. What would be a greater victory for terrorism than the sort of untoward event that decimates Parliament, kills many innocent people and leaves grieving widows, widowers and children? How can concepts be confused to such an extent?

Derek Conway: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's points but some of the interventions suggest that some hon. Members appear to believe that we are holding a debate about protecting Members of Parliament. However, they are not protected when they step outside the Gates. We are debating the protection not of individual Members of Parliament, Ministers or shadow Ministers but of the House when it sits. Which other Assembly meets so regularly, with the Government, the alternative Government and the legislature in one place? Those who go on about protecting Members of Parliament do not even understand the subject of the debate.

Stuart Bell: I need no lessons from anyone about the way in which Members of Parliament can be exposed. I have been attacked twice in my surgeries. One Member of Parliament was seriously wounded and the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), who made a pertinent point earlier, will remember that a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament was assassinated. Members of Parliament understand the risk. The screen was not put up for my benefitI never said that it was. It is there to protect our Parliament, our democracy and the concept of democracy. Hon. Members should understand that.
	The House should support the motion, reject the amendments and thus make a clear statement that we take terrorism seriously in relation to our Parliament and Members of Parliament, of whatever party, and that we will not provide a hostage to fortune that could be shown throughout the world as an example of the way in which democracy can be denigrated and destroyed.

Paul Tyler: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out approves and insert declines to approve.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take amendment (b), in line 2, at end add
	until the efficacy of the temporary screen has been assessed and until a comprehensive assessment of the appropriate access of constituents to Parliament has been approved by the House.

Paul Tyler: Several hon. Members who have contributed, including the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), do not appear to have read the modest, cross-party amendments that I move on behalf of senior colleagues.
	I have genuine sympathy for the Leader of the House and the Commission because they clearly have a difficult dilemma. We should all recognise that and take seriously the advice that theyand through them, the Househave been given. I accept that there is a dilemma and that a balance must be struck I hope that all hon. Members accept that. However, I hope that hon. Members also agree that the amendments constitute a reasonable method of dealing with the issue.
	The amendments do not say, Let's take down the temporary screen. That is an illusion that renders the majority of the preceding speech irrelevant to the amendments. The amendments make it clear that, by not agreeing to a permanent screen, we make it conditional on precisely the comprehensive analysis of the position that the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House believe to be so important. I am sure that we all agree with that. Clearly, it is absurd to consider in isolation a specific part of the parliamentary estate instead of examining carefully the estate as whole.
	Hon. Members of all parties have made points on behalf of those who visit us, the staff whom the House employs and our staff. The risks that they take are not mentioned on the Order Paper. The screen will not help them. Indeed, if it deflects attention from the genuinely urgent issue of screening people who come into the parliamentary estate, we do them a disservice and put them at greater risk. It is important that those who believe that we must take a comprehensive view of the security of all the buildings understand that the screen could divert attention from what is genuinely important.

Peter Hain: I note the serious and logical way in which the hon. Gentleman makes his case. However, if he were standing in my shoes, and the director general of the Security Service had approached him last year to say that her recommendation, based on intelligence, was to erect a screen in the Chamber, would he have said no to her? That is the decision that the House of Commons Commission and I had to make. [Interruption.] It is not a question of doing what we are told but taking serious advice from the director general of MI5, who hourly combats a terrorist threat from al-Qaeda. She said that the best way in which to protect the House was to erect a screen because the Chamber is a target.

Paul Tyler: The motion relates to a permanent screen. The amendment deals with the way in which we assess the necessity for a permanent screen. I can do no other, as they saythe temporary screen is a fait accompli. This afternoon, we must decide whether we say yes to a permanent screen without a proper assessment of the present screen's efficacy. That is what is on the Order Paper, and that is the question that I am addressing.
	I want specifically to deal with a point that the Leader of the House failed to address when he was asked in what way the temporary screen was inadequate. His only answer was that it was aesthetically inadequate: he did not like the look of it. That is an absurd argument. Indeed, if we are talking about a deterrent, this screen is potentially more effective, because it is a more visible barrier, than what is described in the explanatory memorandum. It is important that we distinguish between saying yea or nay to the temporary screen[Interruption.] Some hon. Members take a different view on this. After just four days' experience of the temporary screen in the Chamber, we are being asked this afternoon to say yes to a permanent one. There are a number of reasons why I believe that that would be wrong.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made a specific point on which I might be able to help him. A permanent screen would provide a large number of benefits. They range from non-security issues, such as the fact that it would have non-reflective glasswe would not, therefore, have the effect that we see now from the Chamberand that it would be less visually intrusive even than this relatively modestly intrusive one, to the fact that it would be more secure. The recommendation from the Security Service was for a permanent screen. The director general said that it was a matter for the House how it handled this decision; she was not seeking to influence that. We took the decision that it was right to have a debate of this kind, but she would have preferred it had we just gone ahead and erected a permanent screen without a debate. She sees even this debate as a risk to the House.
	Let us be clear about the seriousness of the situation that we face. I understand and respect the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but he is not addressing the seriousness of the threat to the Chamber, which we were advised on.

Paul Tyler: I entirely understand the severity of the problems that the Leader of the House and the Commission face. I did not have the exclusive briefing, as I am not a Privy Councillor, but I understand from the briefing that I received that the earliest time at which a permanent screen could be erected would be the summer recess of 2005, at a cost of 1.5 million. Why, after just four days' experience of the temporary screen, are we rushing to take a decision that cannot be implemented for 15 months?
	We take this issue seriously, and this is the point of our amendment. For goodness' sake, let us look at the matter sensibly and in a comprehensive way in terms of the risk to all those who come into the parliamentary estatenot just those who come into this Chamber. Let us ensure that the issue is considered in security terms. Two of the three reasons that the Leader of the House has just given for putting up a permanent screen rather than allowing the temporary one to be assessed sensibly are aesthetic; they have nothing to do with security. I want time to think very carefully about the comprehensive security of the whole of the parliamentary estate in the interests of all who come here and work here, rather than just of those who come into this Chamber.

Patrick Cormack: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. If we are to have a permanent screen, it will have to be ordered and fabricated. The Commission has been advised that that would take about 15 months.

Paul Tyler: That is yet another reason to get it right.
	I want to move to another point, which might seem trivial but it illustrates my argument. I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is one occasion on which we must be allowed to refer to the geography, the architecture, of this place. We are not usually allowed to do so. I would ask all hon. Members to look up at the Strangers Gallery for a moment. One hon. Member, who has the same biblical background as I do, referred earlier to sheep and goats. I would refer, perhaps, to first-class and standard visitors. Those who are permitted to sit in front of the screen will be the first-class visitors. They will get a special dispensation because they can be vouched for as reputable. The fact that the permanent screen would be on the same alignment as this temporary screen means not only that we lose 30 seats but that the preferential seats, the first-class seats, would often be unoccupied, while visitors in standard class would be sitting on top of one another.
	I invite colleagues to consider these circumstances. A constituent whom an hon. Member does not know terribly well might say, Please get me two tickets for the Gallery. The hon. Member might think, Wait a minute, I'm not sure that I know this pair. They are both reputable members of the women's institute, but I don't actually know them. They might be suffragettes. I don't think I'll take the risk. I think I'll put them in standard class. In no time, there will be a new parliamentary expression, behind the screen, which will mean some of our electors being treated as second-class citizens.

Andrew MacKay: Cattle class.

Paul Tyler: Behind the screen will equal cattle class. Imagine the circumstances! I understand from those who know everything about this placethat is, the Doorkeepersthat the only recent incidents of any significance in the House have taken place at the front of the Gallery. At present, the front of the Gallery tends to contain very distinguished people, including Members of the other place and diplomats, but that is not exclusively the case. So, if the permanent screen is installed on the same alignment as the present one, the checking of who goes into which section of the Gallery will cause difficulties.

Si�n Simon: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. The most recent incident took place behind the screen this afternoon, but we could not hear it because it was behind the screen.

Paul Tyler: That is a very valid point.
	I want to illustrate my argument further, because this checking has already started. This week, hon. Members have had to vouch for visitors in order to get them a seat in front of the screen. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon, sought entry for his 80-year-old aunt. Imagine if, after a lifetime's ambition to come to the House, he did not feel able to vouch for her safety in this place. She might, for all I know, be a latter-day suffragette or a dangerous liberal. Who knows? But the way in which this issue is currently approached will not satisfy our constituents that all those who elect us to come here are being treated as equals.
	The facilities for Members to show constituents around this place were referred to earlier, and that is an important issue. If we were able to strike a deal that no permanent arrangement would be made until we had better facilities to bring our constituents round and to show them democracy at work, that might be a trade-off that we could accept. The motion as it stands would push through, at speed and with no real experience of the new arrangements, a permanent structure that has all sorts of implications for the perception of this place as a parliamentary democracy open to those who send us here.

Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of points with which I have some sympathy. He rightly draws our attention to his amendment, and I would like him to clarify it further. Its effect would be that we could not erect a permanent screen, but it says nothing about dismantling the temporary screen, which would then, de facto, become the permanent screen.

Paul Tyler: I had to take the advice of the House authorities on this matter. As I understood it, the motion on the Order Paper simply referred to the permanent screen. Strictly speaking, the temporary screen is not on the Order Paper. All that I am saying, in what I think is an entirely logical response to the point made by the Leader of the House, is that the comprehensive reassessment of all the security arrangements of the House should take into account the efficacy of this temporary screen. That seems to be a perfectly common-sense approach, yet it is being dismissed out of hand as though it were irrelevant to the overall comprehensive assessment.

Nigel Evans: I want to make a practical point. We do not recognise anyone in the Strangers Gallery, on either side of the screen, at the moment. To pluck a figure out of the air, if 14 youngsters from my constituency asked to come here, the chances are that I would ask for tickets for them to sit in front of the screen, without perhaps knowing all 14 of them, because I would not want the embarrassment of putting them the other side of the screen. Is that not the kind of weakness that terrorists look for?

Paul Tyler: There is real problem if a representative democracy starts to differentiate between one constituent and another. We could get rid of that problem if a scheme were developed to screen off the whole of the Gallery, but I think that our noble Friends from the other end of the building would be worried if they thought that we were suspicious of them.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I for one will support his amendment and vote against the motion, if that becomes necessary. May I just ask him how we will be able to test the efficacy of this screen? What test will we apply? If there is no terrorist outrage in the course of the next year, will we say that it is a success, and that therefore we ought to have a permanent one? That is what worries me. We should start on the basis that it will go.

Paul Tyler: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is what is extraordinary about presenting us with a fait accompli. We have nothing on paper to explain precisely why it is there. I think that the Leader of the House wants to intervene, but before I invite him to do so, I shall sum up this point: we are being asked to do something very difficult this afternoon, and there is a genuine dilemma. I want to return to the issue of the security context in which this decision should be taken.

Peter Hain: I have intervened on the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, but it helps the debate to do it in this way. He says that there is a fait accompli. It is the duty of the House authorities, and in this case the House of Commons Commission, to look after the security of the Chamber and the whole Palace. In this exceptional situation, unlike that when we returned after one recess and found armed guards in place, and when there was no debate on the Floor of the Housewhich made access more difficult for many peoplewe are having an open debate, and it is not a fait accompli. The hon. Gentleman made a great populist point about first and second-class visitors. It is the case now that a visitor queuing in the street cannot get into the Special Gallery but must sit in the area that is now behind the screen.
	Another point that the hon. Gentleman needs to address is that the recommendation from the Security Service was not for a screen going right the way round the Special Gallery and Press Gallery[Interruption.] It was not, and I shall explain why in a minute. On that logic

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Leader of the House, but these are matters that will perhaps have to be dealt with in the wind-up. I understand his need to explain these points, but it is becoming a speech rather than an intervention.

Paul Tyler: It was a helpful intervention, if I may say so. I wish that the Leader of the House had made those points at the outset. What I find extraordinary is that the argument for a permanent screen has not been developed. A sort of argument has been developed for taking rapid action and producing a temporary screen, but let me come to a much more important point[Interruption.] I will give way to the Leader of the House. How can I resist?

Peter Hain: I apologise, but the reason that I moved the motion in the way that I did was that I relied on the common sense of Members to understand the position. If they wanted me to spell out every detail, I could have done that and answered all these points. It was not in the interests of the security of the House or the Chamber to have done that, but as the hon. Gentleman has required me to do it, I have responded.

Paul Tyler: Let me take up the point made by the Leader of the House that there was no parliamentary approval for the concrete blocks and armed guards. I regret that, and I think that he agrees, because the Modernisation Committee, which he chairs, has taken a lot of evidence about the fact that our constituents are now greeted in their Parliament with a fortress-like response. There must be some way in which we can mitigate that. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom are our free citizens greeted not by someone who says, Can I help you? What do you want to see or hear? but by somebody armed with a weapon.
	Let me return to the substantive point. It is time that people in the House understood the significance of the comprehensive analysis of all the security issues. I understand what the Leader of the House says about that. What I object to is the piecemeal approach. There is no evidence that the screen will assist in the security of all those who work in this building. That is extremely important. For example, I asked the Leader of the House just a few weeks ago what steps are being taken to deal with the large number of lost identity passes for entry into Departments of State, and whether there was a similar situation in this building. I received no answer. In my view, as others Members have said, that is a far more serious security risk to us, our staff, our visitors and all the people who work in this building. I hope that a serious attempt is being made to deal with that issue, because it is much more serious than anything that is happening in the Gallery. We are told that there are 12,500 passes, excluding those of Members of the two Houses. I hope that there is some more effective scrutiny, not just of the way in which they are brought in and out of the House, but of their issue and of what happens when they are lost.
	We must also think carefully about other parts of the parliamentary estate. Let me give one example. Twice yearly, the Prime Minister appears in the Boothroyd Room in Portcullis House in front of the Liaison Committee of senior Members of the House, with the public a few feet away. What security is thereI do not want the Leader of the House to tell me, as it would be much better if he did not. That illustrates, however, that it is extremely important to take a holistic view about the way in which our democracy works. Of course, there must be a balance between access, transparency, visibility and security. To pretend that the most sensitive area is in this Chamber suggests to me that we are more worried about people shouting than about weapons, which would be an extremely unfortunate signal to give.
	As a footnotethis is not the most important issuewe should consider value for money. As we have already heard, 600,000 has been spent on the temporary screen. Why not just see whether it is sufficient? There is no rush, despite what we have been told. The cost will be 1.5 million if the motion is passed this afternoon, for a screen still on that alignment, and still with many of the difficulties that I have mentioned.
	If the amendments, which link together, are accepted, we would for the moment decline to give an okay to an expensive, elaborate scheme, which has not been worked through or considered in terms of alternatives, until we had considered holistically the security situation and thought a bit more about what we, as the representatives of the public and our constituents, should do to make sure that Parliament is still as accessible and visible as we can make it.

David Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Tyler: I am about to finish.
	My concern is the security of all who work in and visit these buildings, not just this Chamber. By prioritising a permanent screen, we are going in the wrong direction.

Alan Williams: If I start by mentioning that I am in my 40th year in the House, it is not in order to suggest that my value judgments are any better than anyone else's, but, I hope, to state that my love of the values and traditions of this House are no less than anyone else's here today. That is the position from which I start. There is no way in which I would have contemplated such a change as has been suggested if I thought that it could be avoided.
	One simple fact must be addressed. At Prime Minister's questions, the Government, the alternative Government, and two thirds of the House of Commons, could be eliminated, all in one attack. What a target that is for a terrorist. What a temptation. We must face up to that. I was here at the time of the CS riot gas attack, and was sitting just opposite the letter stand. Barbara Castle was speaking, the gas canister arrived at her left foot, and within secondssuch was the dissemination, as was mentioned earlierwe were all coughing, spluttering and having to dive out of the Chamber. Twice, to my recollection, possibly three times, we tried unsuccessfully to get back into the Chamber, and it took hours to clear the Chamber and make it habitable for Members of Parliament.
	Let me make this simple point. A very small quantity of one of the toxic biochemical agents available today, if released into the air conditioning circulating system of this Chamber, would be less immediate but far more devastating in its effect on Parliament.
	An erroneous point was made, namely that when the Chamber was destroyed by a bomb during the war, that did not destroy democracy. No, it did not, because it did not destroy Members of Parliament. It did not destroy the Government, and it did not destroy the Opposition. It merely destroyed the place where we metso Parliament met somewhere else.
	We constitute a sitting invitation to a terrorist, and for that reason alone I have changed my mind completely. When screens were first suggested, at the time of the CS gas attackthe hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) will remember thiswe decided against them, but the circumstances are vastly different now.

Gerald Howarth: Apart from the fact that the screen does nothing whatever to protect the ventilation system[Interruption.] Perhaps, rather than sitting there and threatening us with the security services, the Leader of the House should have told us all this. The canister episode pre-dated the extensive screening facilities that we now have. I put it to the right hon. Gentlemanthe Leader of the House may be able to respond if he cannotthat a metal canister containing CS gas or some more toxic material would in all probability be caught by the current security arrangements, which did not exist in the days of Barbara Castle.

Alan Williams: The point about the ventilation system is legitimate. The presentation by the intelligence services made it clear that it would be possible to separate the system.

Oliver Heald: As part of the arrangements for the temporary screen, the ventilation system for the Chamber and for the Gallery behind the screen is already separate.

Alan Williams: As for the other point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), screening arrangements were introduced because they would detect something the size of a CS gas canister; but, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out, we do not necessarily comprehend the sheer toxicity of the substances now available. Only minute quantities need to circulate. They might not kill us there and then, unless we were lucky, but they might well do so within the next couple of days, which would have the same effect: the Government would be gone, the Opposition would be gone, and two thirds of the House of Commons would be gone.

Colin Challen: Obviously we should not stray into the technical details of how an attack might take place. So far, however, Members have spoken only about the air conditioning as a way of disseminating whatever might be introduced into the Chamber. I should like to know how fast the contents of a container that landed on the floor and opened in the middle of the Chamber could be absorbed into the air conditioning and so on. It seems to me that a device would be necessary to expel the contents of a phial, and that would be picked up by the security arrangements unless there was a lapse in security. It would have to be large enough to be picked up in order to be effective in a Chamber this size, which is not a small room. We are not talking about a substance that would be introduced into the water or air conditioning systems; we are talking about something that would be thrown down from the Gallery, and would not be picked up by security. I hope someone will tell me whether I am being a bit of a fantasist.

Alan Williams: Some of these substances are odourless, and it would take time to detect some others. By then it would be too late.

Angela Browning: If the screen were not there and a substance or canister were thrown on to the floor, would not the authorities have to lock us all in the Chamber? Whatever had been thrown might be communicable, and until it had been analysed and tested, we would allif the substance were fatalbe doomed to die. That is the reality of modern weapons of this kind. The security services would recommend the procedure that I have described, and the House authorities would have to carry it out.

Alan Williams: If a biological agent were involved, the safest procedure for everyone else would be to insulate the Chamber and leave us all inside.

Colin Challen: A weapon need not be described as such merely because it contains some substance. It is a weapon if it contains a delivery system. Chucking a phial into the Chamber does not constitute a delivery system. We should concentrate on the real threat rather than engaging in general talk about chemical and biological weapons. We have done that in the past.

Alan Williams: The only answer is to create a barrier that cannot be penetrated.

Colin Challen: I agree.

Alan Williams: That is the purpose of the screento stop things being thrown or ejected, or released in the Gallery so that the air conditioning can deal with the distribution.
	It has been said that the screen is unfair for two reasons. The first is that people in the Gallery are likely to be the victims, rather than the Government being eliminated. Let me make a different point. A terrorist works on the basis of a target's vulnerability. While we are vulnerable, we are a target; when we are not vulnerable, the terrorist will look for an alternative target. He is unlikely to launch an attack on the other side of the screen, knowing that it will not affect those on this sideor, at any rate, is less likely to do so.
	As for the red herring that the Chamber should not be protected until the whole House is protected, that is nonsense in terms of priorities. We must do what we can in the order in which things can be done effectively. We could get this done in weeks. That is why the obscenity up there was put up: we knew that it would take 18 months to provide an alternative.
	I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews): how do we judge efficacy? If nothing has happened after 18 months, do we conclude that the measure was effective or that it was not necessary? We could select either answer. The decision must be made here and nowand, to my mind, the decision here and now must be, and I hope will be, in favour of a permanent screen.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I think I am the only other Member present who, like him, was in the Chamber when the CS gas canister was thrown. The situation was precisely as he described it. I was also here, as he may have been, when manure was thrown and when red ink was thrown. After each of those occurrences, some Members said that we needed a screen. I, like the right hon. Gentleman, was one of those who persistently and continually said No, we do not. Being herebeing in public life, and accepting our vocationmeans having to take risks, in the Chamber and outside.
	I was a member of the Commissionalong with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)when we heard the first request for a screen, about 15 months ago. A security Committee of the House, with Members from all parties, said that we should consider it. My right hon. Friends and I argued robustly against it, as did the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). I do not think I am betraying any secrets when I say that the Commission was unanimously sceptical and unconvinced by the evidence given to us.
	I yield to no one in my affection for this House. I love this place, and I love this Chamber. One of my great regrets is that the Chamber has seen much of its life depart from it over recent years, but that is another issue. I believe that it is absolutely crucial that this Chamber should be available to any citizen of this country, or indeed to any visitor to this country, who wants to come to listen. It is very important that we should have adequate screening processes, so that people are not put at risk.
	Only the other day, I was walking out through St. Stephen's entrance. Someone had one of those pepper-shakers. The policethose who serve us so very well in this place and have not yet been mentioned in this debateapprehended that chap, and he was not going to come in. It is right and proper that we should have the most careful surveillance of those who want to come to listen to our proceedings. However, when the evidence was brought to the Commission earlier this year by the head of the security services and subsequently by the Metropolitan police commissioner, I was very reluctantly persuaded that the screen is a price that we have to pay for the tragic times in which we live. It is a price that we have to pay if we are to continue to allow people to queue on the pavement and to come in to listen. I believe that it is a reasonable price.
	There has been much rather frivolous talk about second-class visitors and all the rest of it. We have different categories of visitor now. We have the diplomats, visiting heads of state and visiting parliamentary delegations; there is a row of seats up there for them. We have Members of the other place, who have special seats, just as there are special seats in the House of Lords for us. We have those who are known to usfamily, friends, constituents whom we know and for whom we can vouch. However, when the people who have the security of this country in their care tell usas a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I heard this, tooabout the sleepers, they say, We are not worried about the ones who have a record. We are worried about the ones who have no record and who are waiting their time to perpetrate some act, be it to come in with a bomb and detonate themselves, or to come in with a phial of chemicals or whatever, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) so graphically illustrated. We have to protect this place and ourselves because we, however imperfectly, are the embodiment of the democracy of this nation.
	It was a spurious analogy to talk about the bomb in 1941. Of course, democracy is far more important than the building, much as I love the building. The building was destroyed. This Chamber was destroyed. We went to Church house briefly. We then moved into the Chamber of the House of Lords, and the Lords moved into the Robing room. For almost 10 years, that is how we conducted our proceedings. If we had a physical attack, we would be able to do something similar now. I hope and believe that there are contingency plans, so that we can do precisely that, but what we are talking about here is someone coming and putting into the Chamber substances that could have the devastating effect that has already been described.
	Of course, we cannot protect ourselves in all places and at all times but the fact that we cannot do everything is no excuse for doing nothing. I was persuaded by the head of the security services and others that the course that we are taking is the right one because a specific threat has been identified. Almost uniquely within the free world, the Executive and legislature of this great country come together at predictable and predetermined times. That presents a target.
	Of course, that happens not just at Prime Minister's Question Time, although that is the weekly predictable time. This very week, we have had two other occasions, which were rightly widely canvassed on the radio, television and in the media, when the Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box, made a statement surrounded by his colleagues, with all my senior colleagues in front of him and the Chamber crowded. That happens in this Parliament but does not happen in others. It does not, for example, happen in Congress because there is a separation of powers and the Executive do not sit in the legislature or go regularly to the legislature. Having had this specific threat pointed out and this real threat underlined, I believe that the Commission would have been in grave dereliction of its duty had it not taken the action that it took.
	I say to colleagues on both sides of the House, and I hope that I will not be castigated by my colleagues on the Commission for this, that my first reaction was to say that we should do this immediately, having been convinced. Then we discussed it among ourselves and decided that it was right to share that knowledge a little more widely. That was why Mr. Speaker wrote not just to Privy Councillors but to Whips of minority partiesthe hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) was there and spoke eloquently at the meetingand to one or two others. They came, and they listened. Of course, there was not unanimity but there was an overwhelming view that this was deeply regrettable but absolutely necessary.

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is making a very eloquent speech, but he has introduced into the debate something that as far as I am concerned has not been mentioned before: a specific threatI am quoting, I think, exactly what he saidto this Chamber of something being thrown into the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course it is not a point of order. I am making a point that is entirely relevant to the debate and therefore it is important that colleagues should know about that. I believe that we have a duty to consider something else, and it came to me during the debate. I have been slightly distressed by some of the comments, including sotto voce comments, that I have heard. I respect everyone who is a robust defender of parliamentary democracy. I have dedicated my life to that and hope that I will do so until the end of my days. However, what we need to doI will talk to the Leader of the House and my colleagues on the Commission about thisis probably to arrange a series of briefings for Members of the House, so that they may share some of the information that we have been given on a strictly confidential basis. It would be the right thing for us to do, because that would dispel some of the manifest ignorance that is present here today.

Andrew Turner: I certainly do not wish to introduce any further note of dissent into the debate but some of us remember being told before that there was an immediate or imminent threat, not to this House but to this nation, and some of us feel that we were misled. However, the point of my intervention is to ask my hon. Friend whether he would give me reasons for voting against the amendment, which so far no one has done.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to give those reasons. I say in passing that I do not accept the thrust of what my hon. Friend sought to say in the first part of his intervention, because I believe that what we were told we were told in good faith. However, I am not going to rehearse all the arguments. I believe that what was done last year was entirely justified, but that is my personal view. As for the amendment, the answer in effect is partly that given by the Leader of the House and partly that given by me in my intervention on the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). While I will not particularise, the screen we have is not wholly as effective as a permanent screen would be. I do not rate the aesthetic considerations as paramount, but I believe that they are real. However, I am concerned about security, not aesthetics. Secondly, having been persuaded that we live in such perilous times that the most comprehensive review of security in this place is necessary and is going onwe must not forget the context in which we are discussing this matterthe sooner we can have the maximum protection, the better.
	The permanent screen will give maximum protection. It will take between 15 and 18 months for it to be ordered, fabricated and erected, and the only time in the next two years when we can do that without further extensions of parliamentary recesseswe have just had such an extension, for that purposewill be in the long summer recess of 2005. We therefore need the approval of this House, and I beg colleagues in all parts of the House, if they care about this place and access to it by anybody on the street who wants to come and listen, to support the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader today.

Si�n Simon: There are some strange misconceptions in this debate; it is almost surreal. If it were the case that were it not for the screen, we would all be murdered, there might be something in itbut that is not so. All the screen does is protect us from the people sitting behind itnot from those in front of it or in Central Lobby, or from the serried ranks of journalists. If I were a terroristor the kind of sleeping infiltrator whose entire life was dedicated to annihilating or subverting our democracy and traditionswith the wherewithal to get my hands on a little phial of lethal anthrax, I should probably also have the initiative to write to my Member of Parliament, whom I had taken the trouble to get to know a little, and ask him to get me a seat in front of the screen.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a difference, even these days, between someone who queues up and comes in off the street and a member of the parliamentary Lobby?

Si�n Simon: It is true that I can tell the difference between a member of the publicindeed, a member of the human raceand a member of the parliamentary Lobby. The point remains; I do not think that the screen is likely to be a significant deterrent to a resourceful terrorist. What it does is to send out all the wrong signals about us, our Parliament and our democracy to the people whom we are supposed to represent.

Peter Hain: If my hon. Friend does not think that the screen will be a serious deterrent, why does he think that MI5 recommended it to us?

Si�n Simon: The screen tells us that the head of MI5 and her minions are no doubt excellently cognisant of the evil machinations of terrorists and that, although she understands terrorism very well, she perhaps does not understand Parliament particularly well. Anyone who understood Parliament would not put a screen half way up the Strangers Gallery, because they would know that any resourceful terrorist would just go in front of it.

Peter Hain: indicated dissent.

Si�n Simon: The Leader of the House shakes his head. I do not in any way impugn the motives or the sincerity of the Commission, the Leader of the House or any of the people who have made the decision. I just do not agree with them.
	The one time that the Leader of the House and his able sidekick were nodding vigorously was when the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said that just because we cannot do everything is not a reason for doing nothing. That is a good pointone in politics generally that I make all the time. On this occasion, however, it is better to say that there is no point doing something that is foolish. Doing something foolish is not better than doing nothing.
	I have a couple more random points. Several speeches, the preponderance of which have been in favour of the screen, in a Chamber that is clearly more hostile because of it, have mentioned the peculiarity of the concentration and predictability of the timetable in this Parliament, compared with others. That is just not true. I was in the Assemble Nationale, I think at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), where we watched Government question time. The President was not there, but the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet were, and there was certainly no screen, although that event was perfectly predictable. Most Parliaments are quite predictable; there is nothing particularly unique about this place in that sense.
	That thingthat screensends a signal to our constituents that we are frightened. It says to Mr. Terrorist, I am frightened of you. You have made me change my ways. You have put a barrier between my Parliament and my people. It says, You are winning, Mr. Terrorist. I am running, I am hiding. British democracy should not hide from terrorists; that is not the way. The screen is based on a misconception. By having it, we are telling people that they can come in and bring their anthrax, and that if they get a ticket, they can go into the Gallery with it. We are telling people that they are welcome to swing their anthrax around Central Lobby, and that if they can get an invitation to lunch with a Member in the Strangers Dining Room and lob a bit of chemical weaponry around there, that is no problem. The only place where there will be no point in their taking their anthrax is up there where the screen is. What is the point of that?

Peter Hain: On the logic of my hon. Friend's argument that we are frightened, he would not have armed police guards or concrete bollards outside, or airport-type security here. He would have no security at all. My point to him is that this move is about reducing risk. The Security Service advice was about reducing risk, for the good reasons that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) explained.

Si�n Simon: No, that is not true, because the screen does not work. All that it is, is a symbol. It is a physical barrier symbolising something that is metaphorically very important. It is telling people, You can't come in. You can't turn up and walk into the same Room as your Member of Parliament, feel what they feel, see what they see and hear what they hear, and that is wrong.
	My final point, although I am conscious that the motion and amendment do not really allow for the full expression of this, is that hon. Members are wrong when they suggest that we should give the screen time. We all know what happens to temporary structures that are erected, especially when evaluation is impossible, as several hon. Members have said. We do not want to give the screen time. We need to get rid of it before we get used to it.

Eric Forth: I want to echo several of the points that have been made, and make one or two further ones, if I may. I immediately pick up on what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) has just said. It is obvious that different Members have different views on the signals sent out, and that there are genuinely different interpretations of the signal question. I do not think that the argument is conclusive either way, although I tend to agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
	We could embark on rather pompous statements about our great democracy and the mother of Parliaments and so on, although we are rather over-prone to those in this place. There are other great democracies around the world. The great democracy in the United States does not, to my knowledge, involve having screens in Congress, even though the President of the United States makes a predicted state of the union address in Congress every year. The Australian Parliamentarguably the most vigorous of Parliaments, of which I wish I were a Member, because it is like this place used to be in the old dayshas most of the Government there every day answering questions, but I am not aware that there is a screen in Canberra, either. The arguments about signals and comparisons with other Parliaments are very balanced, and are not conclusive one way or the other.
	Another point concerns the two categories of visitor. Of course it is right to say that there have always been different categories of visitorsor, as we charmingly call them, strangersto this House, but as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the screen makes that obvious. It cries out that there will be at least two very different categories of people: the favoured, who are here courtesy of a Member of Parliament; and the others, who have yet to be able to persuade an MP that they have an intimate relationship with them and can be vouched for. That is the key difference between the fait accompli that we have been presented with, and which we are being asked to make permanent, and the previous situation. That is why having the screen is a significant step.
	We should also consider a point that has been touched on only briefly, and which was raised in the now notorious meeting of the great, the good and the not so good; I, too, was there. Why do we assume that the Press Gallery is so secure that we need do nothing about it? I asked this question in that meeting and I ask it again: how certain can we be that nobody who could present a threat to this House will ever get into the Press Gallery? I remain to be convinced, to put it mildly.

Peter Hain: rose

Eric Forth: The Leader of the House is about to attempt to convince me.

Peter Hain: I am not sure that I can convince the right hon. Gentleman about anything, but I shall at least answer his question. As he knows, in order to be issued with a pass, members of the Press Gallery are subject to the normal required vetting procedures. A number of trainee journalists sometimes enter the Chamber. They will be subject to more rigorous checks, in line with the checks to which others are subjected in other Galleries.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House and I wish that I were convinced, but unless things have changed radically since I last looked at the issue, sadly, I remain uncertain that the system for issuing passes in this place is remotely secure. I have never seen evidence

Several hon. Members: rose

Eric Forth: Let me finish making this point, since the Leader of the House has raised it. That said, I do not want to dwell on it, because it relates to the point, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) rightly dwelt on, about the overall comprehensive security review. I want reassurance in this regard: I want to be told that when passes are issued for free entry into this place, we are absolutely certain of the identity of the person concerned, and of the fact that they are not a security threat. I am not certain that that is so. In fact, I have reason to believe that, until fairly recently, the information given on the application form was scanty to say the least, that references were never taken up, and that proper security vetting was never done. So I am not happy about passes issued for the Press Gallery or more generally.

Colin Challen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the press have become very adept at sneaking all sorts of impostors into places such as airport loading areas and perhaps even Buckingham palace? Does that not show that such actions could pose a very significant security threat to Members in this Chamber?

Eric Forth: Yes, and in a sense I wish that we saw more people in the Press Gallery more frequently; looking at it now, it is no security threat whatever. [Laughter.] The point is a serious one. We have become obsessed with the temporary screenand rightly so, as it is the only point at issue todayyet the rest of the Chamber's surroundings remain gapingly open.

David Burnside: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much confusion, in that many Members misunderstand the difference in security terms between a general threat and a specific one? It would help the conduct of our debate if we explained the difference between a general threatthose of us who voted for the war received a visit from our local police, who pointed out that there was a general threatand the specific threat that many of us experience in Northern Ireland. The latter is designated as coming from a defined sourcea terrorist organisationand is directed at the individual. It would help to inform this debate if the Leader of the House defined whether we are talking about a specific threat to the House, or a general one from worldwide terrorism. There is total confusion on the subject.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. It is because, tragically, of the experience that our Northern Ireland colleagues have had and continue to have of such difficulties, that they should be listened to carefully on this and related issues. It would be salutary if we heard moreI hope from my hon. Friendabout Northern Ireland's experience over the years of the different forms of parliamentary chambers there.
	That brings me to the role of the Security Service. I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would like to elaborate on that, if they can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not as convinced as I suppose I should be that, because someone even as eminent as the head of our Security Service comes here to give the House advice, that settles the matter. That is not how it should work. Under our governmental system, I thought that officers, officials and advisers advised and Ministersin this case, Membersdisposed. That is how it should work. Of course we should take full account of the advice given to us from the highest levels of our Security Serviceindeed, we should take it very seriously. In the end, however, we are the ones who have to strike the balance between the demands of democracy, incorporating the symbolism of what we do, and the advice given by security people.

Stuart Bell: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right that the decision is a matter for the House. The Leader of the House said in opening the debatethis might help the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside)that the Security Service made an unequivocal recommendation to raise the screen. That is the basis on which the screen was raised and it explains why we are having this debate. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Eric Forth: I am not disposed at this stage to go into the details of that argument, which I shall leave to others, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point and hope that it was helpful in the context in which it was raised.
	I shall touch briefly on the extravagant claimwe have now effectively disposed of itthat the screen would protect, as someone said, thousands of our staff. We have established through our useful debate that the screen will provide protection only for Members of Parliament and those who work for us in the Chamber. There are a small number of such colleagues, as I shall call them. They are the only people for whom the screen will provide protection and, in a way, that diverts the attention of potential terrorists to the rest of the parliamentary estate. Let us not hear any more talk from those who have supported the proposal and set this thing up that the screen somehow gives protection to all parliamentary colleagues and staff. It does nothing of the kind, and it may even have a counter-effect.

Peter Hain: To help the right hon. Gentleman, whose point of view I respect, I should say that the director general provided evidence, based on intelligence, that there was a threat to the House

Kate Hoey: To the Chamber.

Peter Hain: Let me finish. That intelligence led the director general to make a specific recommendation that the best way of combating that threat was to erect a permanent screen. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) and other members of the Commission will be able to confirm that. That was the director general's recommendation. I could have spelled it out in greater detail at the beginning of the debate, but that would not have been in the best interests of the security of the House. It is all about reducing risk, not eliminating it.

Eric Forth: No, we cannot have that from the Leader of the House. We moved the motion for the House to sit in private precisely to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to provide those details to the House. He led his troops against that move, claiming that he would be able to tell us everything necessary for the debate. He cannot have it both ways; that really will not do. It is unfair of him to say that. He should come clean with us, with all the risk that that entails. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spelled out in a point of order, the Leader of the House cannot now hide behind the fact that providing details would be wrong. We gave him the opportunity to do so.

Peter Hain: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean it when he spoke about coming clean with the House. I have been more open and frank with the House than members of the Commission would ideally have wanted. Am I to produce documents shown to me, or transcripts of conversationsincluding much probingbetween the director general of MI5, myself and members of the Commission? Given the seriousness of the threat to Britain's securitywhich has resulted in arrests up and down the countryand to the Chamber, I do not believe that that would be a responsible course to take.

Eric Forth: I shall let the record speak for itself on that.

Andrew MacKay: I listened closely to the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and the Leader of the House. I decided to vote against the House sitting in private, because of the assurances that I thought we had received from the right hon. Gentleman. I was misled and, if I had my time again, I would support my hon. Friend's motion.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Would that procedures allowed us to have another go at going into a private sitting. Sadly, we are faced with yet another of the procedural boondoggles so often visited on us, and we cannot do that any more. We are therefore stuck, as it were, with debating the matter in public.

Chris Bryant: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that, if we were sitting in private, any information from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that was of greater substance than he has given us already would remain private?

Eric Forth: If the hon. Gentleman were present, it would not, but I think that I would trust almost everybody else.

Angela Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we face a difficulty in this debate? One hon. Member thought that the screen's sole purpose was to prevent attacks involving firearms. It is clear from the debate so far that some hon. Members have more information than othersmembers of the Commission obviously do. I am not a Privy Councillor, and have not been briefed. Nevertheless, any hon. Member who has been subject to a security threat will accept that, if the debate is to be held in open session, uniform information must be given to everyone beforehand.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is right. I hoped that I would not have to say this, but she forces me to: I was a member of the Commission and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) pointed out, I was privy to the original discussion of this matter. Apparently, things have changed since then, although I am not sure that they have changed that much. I was also present at the very secret meeting when very senior and important hon. Members were told a little more. Not all of us know all of the information, but we are talking about the possibility that people could enter the parliamentary estate with chemical or biological agents concealed about their persons that are impossible to detect by normal methods. Such people could therefore get those substances into the building and, by implication, into the Strangers Gallery. They could then distribute the materials to our disadvantageor, indeed, death. That is the argument, as I understand it.
	The proposition is that the screen will deal with that threat. As we are all being very frank and open this afternoon, I shall adopt the same approach and say that there is a gap at the bottom of the screen through which someone could easily distribute one of the agents that I have described. The screen's effectiveness is therefore extremely doubtful.

Oliver Heald: I assure my right hon. Friend that I took up the point about gaps in the screen. I was told that there is none, and that other measures have been taken to ensure that what he fears cannot happen.

Eric Forth: Well, other measures being takenwe have all heard that one before. That may not convince the House, but the sad truth is that we remain very vulnerable, in other parts of the parliamentary estate that are not privileged in having a screen, to people releasing agents of the sort that I have described.

Andrew Robathan: Any head of MI5 is going to cover his or her back and say that all possible measures have been taken. That is understandable, and I do not blame the present head of MI5 for saying that. The security conditions are very difficult but, if there is a definite threat that a person in the Strangers Gallery might lob something into the Chamber, I am willing to go along with having that ghastly screen. However, those responsible for security may merely have scratched their heads and decided that they needed to do everything that they possibly could. The screen is one thing, but would my right hon. Friend agree with sitting in a bunker underground, for example?

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the distinction between officials and elected representatives. Officials have a proper role to play, and they are obviously playing it, but our role is very different. We have to assess the advice given by officials, and then put it in the context of our relationship with our electors and the democratic system overall.
	I want to say something about money. We have become very prone to be liberal about spending taxpayers' money.
	In fact, there are few, if any, mechanisms to protect the taxpayer from us. We are supposed to protect the taxpayer from the Government, but protecting the taxpayer from us is a much more difficult proposition and the body that does that, or is supposed to, is the very body that has put up the screen. It has already spent a lot of our money and wants to spend even more

Kate Hoey: rose

Eric Forth: Before I develop that point, I shall of course give way to the hon. Lady.

Kate Hoey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was horrified when I saw how much had already been spent and what will be spent if the proposal goes through: more than 1 million, give or take a few hundred thousand. Many of my constituents live near this place and many actually work here; few of them will be protected by the screen. In my area, we cannot find a community police officer because all the policemen have been moved from Lambeth to protect the Palace of Westminster. Is it not just as right to provide protection for my constituents? Instead, we have this pathetic knee-jerk reaction, which simply plays into the hands of terrorists?

Eric Forth: I am sure that the hon. Lady speaks for many, if not most, of her constituents if they are as fully aware of what is going as I hope they will be tomorrowafter we have rejected the motion, ideally. We are talking not only about the money for the existing screenthat has been spent alreadybut about the further money proposed for the permanent screen. Indeed, were we to reach the next item on the Order Paper, there is a proposal to spend another 5 million or so. Many Members may not be aware that lurking behind that is an even more grandiose scheme for a Disney theme park approach for visitors to this placethe cost of which, when I last saw it, was 15 million.
	I mention those figures because we have an alarming tendency to spend taxpayers' money even more liberally, in proportional terms, than the Government, and that is pretty difficult to achieve. I hope that, as Members examine this and the following motion, they will consider carefully what we are spending on ourselves on behalf of the taxpayer.
	My final point reinforces the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall, in whose name the amendments were tabledmy name is on them, too. The amendments were intended to give the House the opportunity to pause for consideration, and I hope that it will look carefully at them and agree to them. For the moment, we can do nothing about the temporary screen, but I hope that the amendments will give the House the opportunity not only to consider the efficacy of that screennot to regard it as permanent in any way and perhaps to return to the subject in the futurebut to defer commitment to the greater expenditure on the permanent screen until we have had a much better chance to assess what such a screen means and what it can and, more importantly, cannot do. That was the intention in tabling the amendments. They give the House a much better opportunity than simply

Geraint Davies: Have the right hon. Gentleman and the other proponents of prevarication who support the amendments considered placing a screen down the centre of the Chamber, so that he and others could sit near the Strangers Gallery while we sat on the other side in safety?

Eric Forth: I shall treat that intervention with the respect that it deserves.
	This debate is a very important occasion. It is one on which we are given an opportunity to consider our role, our relationship to securityboth specifically and more generallyand the matter of messages and symbols. It is in that context that I hope the House will agree to the amendments, which will give us an opportunity to return to the issue when we are better informed and when we have made a much better assessment of where we are going and why we want to go there.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: There is a canard abroad. I have heard it whispered that those of us who bitterly oppose this thing do so because we wish, in some way, those on the Front Bench to be put at greater risk. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I can reveal to you that one of the reasons that I habitually attempt to take this particular seat during Prime Minister's questions is so that I can, if necessary, suddenly interpose my own body between the Prime Minister and the public or indeed the Press Gallery[Interruption.]and even the Leader of the House.
	Important points are involved. First, I fundamentally and truthfully believe that such a measure will, in the long run, increase the risk for Members in the House. If the motion is passed and there is a permanent screen, that will be a small victory. It will not be a victory for the Serjeant at Arms, with whom I have considerable sympathy, or for the security services, with which I have infinitely less sympathy after the events of last year, or for the Metropolitan police commissioner, for whom I have a great liking and admiration. It will be a victory for the grim list of organisations appended to the Terrorism Act 2000, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, al-Qaeda and so on, which will have the enormous satisfaction of knowing that simply through their existence and the threats that they say they pose they will, to adopt a note of pomposity, have turned the mother of Parliaments into a Lilliputian assembly that, they would perceive, is cowering behind a wall of glass. Those are criminal organisations, and should be treated as suchthey should never be endowed with the status of warriors. They should not be treated as warriors but with contempt.
	I do not remember speaking well of Baroness Thatcher in the House before, but I shall do so now. When she was bombed, only hours afterwards she was at the Conservative party conference carrying on with the democratic process. We should remember that indomitable spirit of politics, because we are sending a messageto utter another pompositynot just to our constituents but to every terrorist organisation that is hoping to undermine and destroy our democratic way of life through the threat that they pose.
	Secondly, this building does not belong to Members of Parliament. It is a royal palace but it is also, in the best sense, the people's palace. They come here not because of sufferance or invitation from us but as of right. They have a right to be here, not as voyeurs or listeners, but to participate in the process. Of course, they cannot speak while they are here, but their very presence alters the warp and weft of what we do. When the House laughs, as its does, fortunately, on occasion, that laughter is echoed by the people who sit there and are with us. When the place is sad or solemn, that sadness and solemnity is felt not just down here but throughout the Chamber. Any interference with that is a gross distortion and intervention with the body politicthey will know it, and we will know it. There could not be a stronger metaphor for the alienation of people from politics than what we are proposing to put up.
	Of course, there is risk, but we are here to take risks. We are not here simply to soak up the many benefits and privileges associated with being a Member. We are here to bear and share the risks that our people bear and share. What rights have we over, for instance, those who preside over public order or public matters? What about the thousands of judgesI do not hold a special brief for themor the counsel who appear before them? What about the thousands of jurors who go into a jury box every single day in public courtsinstitutions that, the Leader of the House will not mind me reminding him, are the among the most noble in the country. Those jurors are at risk, but are we going to put glass screens up in the public gallery in all our courts, thereby changing their very nature and the way in which they operate?
	We must accept the risk and, although the Leader of the House gave the notion short shrift, I am unapologetic in arguing that our action will increase the risk to people behind the screen. They are at as much risk as us, and if we isolate ourselves by an absolute action we will increase the risk to them.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, apart from Parliament, nothing is more important than our courts being able to function and being open to scrutiny from the public? He knows as well as I do that where courts are thought to be at risk for various reasons, security measures are taken. He will have been to Winchester and seen them.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: On occasions. I have some experience of courts. I know of no plans to put up glass screens between the court and the public gallery. On occasion we put up screens, and it is one of the ways that we deal effectively with terrorist caseson occasion. That is why I accept from the Leader of the House that a temporary screen in the Chamber mayI do not knowhave been necessary, but a permanent screen is certainly not necessary.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. and learned Gentleman, as always, makes an eloquent speech, but he is advancing a spurious argument. There may be occasions when it is necessary to take proper protective measures in court, but there is a weekly occasion to which a number of us have referred when the whole of the Executive and most of the Legislature are assembled here.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect. If we are speaking about the ability to foresee events of a strategic nature, the courts are no better and no worse off than we are. Massive trials involving terrorists are well publicised. We know when they are to take place. Terrorists know when they are to take place. I have never been in a position where screens have been erected between the public gallery and a court in those circumstancesnever. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, his argument will not wash.
	The problem is that it will be perceived outside, with a great deal of justification, that we are protecting ourselvesI take the hon. Gentleman's argument that this is democracy, but what will be perceived is that we are protecting ourselves and letting the rest go hang. We must bear the risk, and we must be seen to share it with others and with our constituents.
	We take risks when we hold our surgeries. I have no more intention of holding my surgeries behind glass than I have of sitting in the Chamber behind glass, because my constituents have a right to see me not through a glass darklythat may improve the situation in some respectsbut face to face, both in those circumstances and here. If we vote for a permanent screen we will be contributing not to national security, but to national neurosis. There will be no end to it. I very much hope that the amendments will be passed, in which case the substantive motion will fall, but if they are not, I hope the substantive motion will be defeated in due course.

James Arbuthnot: I should like to take up a point raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), who made a distinction between a defined threat and a specific threat. I should like to pursue that into the difference between a threat and a vulnerability.
	We have not been told whether there is a defined, specific threat to the House. That is probably not that relevant. One week there may be a defined threat, and the next week that threat may have diminished. One week there may be none, and the next week a defined threat may be heard about. By the time a defined, specific threat is discovered, however, it may be too late to do anything about it.
	One thing that no hon. Member has questioned in the debate so far is that the House, and the Chamber particularly, is vulnerable. It is obviously vulnerable. Nobody has questioned that. It is not just a potential target for terrorismit is an easy potential target. It is not just an easy potential targetit is an attractive, easy potential target, and not just for terrorists. It is a target for hoaxers as well. That could be just as disruptive to the life of this country as real terrorism, and just as bad in publicity terms for the terrorist threat. If a powder or a gas or a liquid were released into the Chamber, it would be impossible to tell for a long time precisely what was contained in it.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) made an important intervention on the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in respect of the specific threat to which my right hon. Friend refers. I suspect that what the Leader of the House is really trying to tell us is that the issue is not guns, but toxic threats.

Peter Hain: I said so.

Gerald Howarth: Only under pressure.
	Will my right hon. Friend please explain to the House how some of these toxic materials can be brought into this Chamber and disseminated in such a way as to cause the kind of mayhem that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West threatened us with? It is my understanding that some extremely dangerous items are around, but unless the substances can be propelled into the atmosphere, they will not do the damage that we are being frightened into believing faces us.

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend has an expertise in these matters that I do not have, but the advice of the director general of the Security Service is clearly quite specific. It is that that threat does exist and that there is a risk not only of these weapons being brought into the Chamber, but of their being disseminated in a way that would cause serious damage. I am personally prepared to accept that advice.
	If this Chamber is vulnerable, the question is: what should we do about it? We have been advised that we can reduce the vulnerability by putting up a screen more permanent than the one up there above us. I accept that that is not the answer to all the problems that we face or all the threats and vulnerabilities in the rest of this Palace, but it is an answer to some of the problems that we face.
	The alternative, of course, is to do nothing, and to accept the vulnerability of this Chamber. That has its attractions. It has the attraction of continuing the accessibility, in one sense, of the constituents who come to see us by having them within the same broad Chamber as we are. But to reject the clear and firm advice of the director general of the Security Service on this issue runs the risk of courting the accusation of bravado.
	I am reminded a bit of the incident of Neil Kinnock. When the Security Service advised that we should put up gates at the entrance to Downing street, Neil Kinnock pledged the Labour party to removing the gates as soon as it got into office. We have had a Labour Government now for seven years, and this is one of those many things on which they have, I am afraid, failed to deliver. There used to be a time when one could walk down Downing street and there were no crowd barriers or gates, and when Harold Wilson could be photographed at the door of No. 10. Those times are gone. There used to be a time when one could come into this House and there would be no searching and no screens. Those times are gone. Actually, those crowd barriers, gates, searches and screens, and the queues that they create for all the members of the public who try to get into this House, are the barriers that currently exist between ourselves and our constituents.

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very eloquent and compelling speech, for which I am grateful. Some hon. Members seemed to suffer a memory loss, however, and I wish to remind the House of what I said in my opening speech, and I relied on the director general of MI5 when I said it. As I said, if an al-Qaeda group managed to throw a phial of anthrax or ricin into the Chamber or, maybe even worse, if a suicide agent released the substance without anybody noticing, which we have been advised is quite feasible, the particles would immediately begin spreading throughout the Chamber because of the way in which the air flows work. Within minutes, total contamination could occur. I remind the House that that is what I said earlier.

James Arbuthnot: That is advice that I think we should be foolish to reject.
	We might wish that the security-free days of old were back, but I think that it would be very foolish for us to pretend out of bravado that they are back. They are not back; they are gone, and I suspect that they are gone for good.

Derek Conway: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:
	The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 66.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Kate Hoey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought, when I was elected to Parliament, that all Members were treated equally. You have often said that yourself. How is it, then, that some Members have clearly had more briefings and more intelligence, and know more about whether there is a direct threat to the Chamber or to the House, whereas I, as a Member of Parliament representing my constituents, have not had all these briefings? How am I supposed to vote on this issue when I do not have the information that some more privileged Members have? I represent my constituents just as much as they represent theirs.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member is equal

Eric Forth: No!

Mr. Speaker: Order. That includes the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I would say to the hon. Lady that she was a Minister at one time and was therefore privy to information that I did not have. She did not disclose it to me. Some hon. Members who took part in this debate were and still are members of the Security Committee and therefore have access to security information. I have told the House that I took soundings before the debate and I invited Privy Councillors to come to the meeting, which was attended by about 60 right hon. Members. To their credit, not one individual leaked any information to the media. I had the very sensitive problem of security to worry about. I will give information to the House as openly as I can, but the hon. Lady will understand that, where security is concerned, I hear of things that I have to keep to myself or to a very few people, because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I sought to move that the House sit in private because I was concerned that the Leader of the House would not be able to share with those of us who are not members of the Commission particularly sensitive information, which we might have been able to discuss if the House had met in private. The Leader of the House assured us that we would be able to have such discussions, then opened his speech by saying that he could not disclose such information. Indeed, throughout the debate, he said that he could not share such information fully with Members because of its sensitivity. I submit that he has not played a fair game with hon. Members on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The House made the decision whether to sit in private or not. The hon. Gentleman asked that the question be put, and I did that. The House must now decide on amendment (a), which was moved by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 92, Noes 99.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 76.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House approves the installation of a permanent security screen between the Chamber and the Strangers' Gallery.

Visitor Facilities

Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. You will be aware that the motion on visitor facilities is important because it affects the security of the House and involves large amounts of taxpayers' money. If I am right, we have only 54 minutes to debate the motion. I seek guidance on whether that is long enough to debate such an important issue. Would it not be wiser to conduct it at another time in the near future?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the House. At 6 o'clock, other Members may want to participate in the debate, but it will stop then and it will be for the House to decide whether to take the matter up again at a later date.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of clarity, if someone were on their feet and still participating in the debate at 6 o'clock, are you saying that, sadly, the matter would have to be carried over to another day?

Mr. Speaker: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman shows that he has a grasp of these matters. Yes, I would agree with that interpretation.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on Visitor Facilities: Access to Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 324) and endorses the Committees' proposals for a new reception and security building at the north end of Cromwell Green.
	The whole House is left wondering whom the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thought might still be on their feet at 6 o'clock.
	In moving the motion, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will reflect on the points made in our previous debate. It would be paradoxical, if not ironic, if Members who have opposed the introduction of the security screen in the Strangers Gallery on the ground that it separates the public from the House, were also to oppose this motion, which is about improving the welcome and information given to visitors to the Houses of Parliament.
	The primary purpose of the motion is to improve the welcome that we give to visitors. If the motion is accepted, visitors' first contact will be with visitors' service staff, not with security staff. The service staff will ensure that visitors are headed in the right direction, and given information and answers to their questions. In that way, people will be generally welcomed to their Parliament.

Bob Spink: Will the service staff be able to direct visitorswho may have travelled some distanceto a toilet facility that they can use right at the outset of their visit?

Phil Woolas: The Government are ever vigilant about what is important for visitors. The point may be light hearted, but it is serious. I am pleased to say that the answer is yes, and that the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee has paid attention to the matter. The toilet facilities have been improved in the area occupied by what I always used to call the policemen's caf but which I believe is now called the Jubilee caf.
	The necessary security screening will be transferred from its present site at the St. Stephen's entrance. That will be more convenient for visitors and staff, and it will also enhance security, as the screen will be outside the main building, in the new reception centre.
	I want to draw to the attention of the House the importance of the new centre in respect of the numbers of visitors already coming to the Palace. I hope that those numbers will rise as the measures being recommended are put in place and as the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to attract more visitors are acted on.
	The joint report states that 130,000 people visited the Commons Public Gallery last year. Between 250 and 500 people visit the Gallery in the House of Lords every day. Last year, about 96,000 visitors came on constituency tours, 9,000 in school parties, and 87,000 during the summer opening period.

Judy Mallaber: We are talking about securing greater access for visitors, so will my hon. Friend look seriously at how access for constituency tours can be increased? People need to be able to see what the House does, but seats are to be taken out of the Gallery. Moreover, the change in working hours means that it is less easy to arrange constituency tours to the House. Will he make a serious commitment to finding ways to allow people at least to walk past and see the business of the House in progress?

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The domestic Committees and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House have been looking at the matter, and we will be able to report improvements in the arrangements for constituency visits. I should explain that the Committees' reportfor which I hope the House is gratefulis part of a wider strategy of improving information about, and access to, the Palace of Westminster. The proposals should be seen in the context of the work of the Broadcasting Committee to improve webcasting and the televising of Standing Committees and Select Committees. I am sure that the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), is mindful of that.
	At this point, I should inform the House that, unfortunately, the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), cannot be here. She is on parliamentary business, but I know that she would have liked to attend the debate.

Andrew Robathan: The Minister said that it would be illogical for anyone who opposed the security screen on the ground that we should have greater contact with constituents not to welcome these proposals. However, the previous debate was about whether the security screen was necessary. The Minister's position appears contradictory: he says that it is marvellous to encourage more people to come here, but he said earlier that he wants to take out 30 seats and stop people getting close to the House of Commons.

Phil Woolas: I said that that would be paradoxical and ironic; I did not say that it would be illogical. If the hon. Gentleman were to pursue his argument, I think that it would follow, logically, that he should support the new visitors centre. The argument put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in favour of the security screen was based on the need for security. Erecting the screen could be seen as an alternative to debarring public entry to the Public Gallery. I do not think that any hon. Member would support that. It is a question of finding a balance between the security advice on safetyin the previous debate, we heard the advice from the Security Serviceand encouraging greater access to the Palace. That is a difficult task, which is why I think that the House will welcome the Committee's thorough and comprehensive report.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Phil Woolas: I shall take one more intervention, but then I must move onthis is only a short debate.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have a question on a technical point. At the United Nations, screening takes place outside in tents, because if there were a blast it would spread. Thus casualties could be minimised. Cromwell green is in a trough, so how can that be the best or safest place in the event of a suicide bombing? I am genuinely bewildered by the idea that it is safer to be in a trough or a moat. To pick up on a point made in the earlier debate, perhaps we could explore the use of tentsunappealing as they areon the green in Parliament square.

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps he will be able to see things in the round as I continue my remarks.
	The reception centre proposal is to be seen very much as the first stage in a series of improvements. Proposals for a more expansive and comprehensive visitors centre will come later and at that stage proposals for further improvements to security screeningfrom the proposed change from the St. Stephen's entrance to the new Cromwell green sitewill be vetted. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but the proposal in the Committees' report to move security screening from the historic Westminster Hall so that it is outside the main building will in itself improve the security arrangements.

Paul Tyler: rose

Phil Woolas: I said that I would take only one more intervention, but the hon. Gentleman seems so keen to intervene that I shall give way to him, but then I want to proceed with my speech.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
	I am very supportive of the limited proposals, but I am worried by one thing that the Minister said. It sounded as though the first instalment is part of a continuum and that by voting for it we may be committing ourselves to a much more expensive and expansive visitors centre. Will he assure the House that although this is a first step, it will not necessarily lead to anything more than the current proposals before the House?

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I think was a probing intervention. He is right to ask that question, and I am sure that reading the report will reassure him that we are discussing the first of what I and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hope will be two stages and that there is no commitment

Eric Forth: Oh no.

Phil Woolas: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that there will be a third stage, too. However, I can reassure the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
	We are grateful to the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee for the speed and thoroughness with which they produced the report. We are also grateful to their counterparts in the House of Lords for their helpful co-operation, as this is very much a joint endeavour of the two Houses.
	The Government strongly support the Committees' proposals for a new reception and security building on Cromwell green, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is personally strongly committed to improving the welcome that we give our visitors. It is regrettable, although unavoidable in the current climate, that our visitors should be subject to security screening on arrival, but that must be done in a manner that is welcoming and unobtrusive. We must remember, and demonstrate, that it is their Parliament, not ours. It is not acceptable that people are left queuing in the rainas is the case currentlyoften for long periods. It is also important to provide a decent working environment for our staff.
	I shall not speak in detail about the report, as I hope that the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to explain exactly what is proposed. The report is clearly set out and I especially commend to the House the fold-out plan in appendix 1; I am sure that all Members have looked at it. The House will want to know how much the new building will cost.

Andrew Robathan: Yes.

Phil Woolas: I shall tell the House what the costs are. The report states that initial estimates for the capital costs of the new building and the covered walkway
	are in the region of 5 million.
	The additional staff required will result in increased revenue costs of about 200,000, which will be divided on a 60:40 basis with the House of Lords.

Eric Forth: I hope to go into this in greater detail if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker but, for the sake of completeness, does the Minister accept that paragraph 32 of the report, which says that costs
	are in the region of 5 million,
	goes on to say:
	The final figure is therefore likely to be higher?
	Can he give us a clue as to how much higher? He is asking us to sign up to 5 million, but there is an unspecified additional element. Paragraph 34 says that there will be
	a total increase in revenue costs of 200,000 per annum. Some extra costs would also be incurred.
	Are we not entitled to be suspicious that we are being sold a pig in a poke?

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the news reader who asked a news reporter if he could tell the viewers what the next surprise was going to be. The report is honest. It says what the costs are and allows some flexibility, but the Committees of the House, the House authorities and all hon. Members can scrutinise the matter, just as the right hon. Gentleman is always urging us to do. If we were to be as precise as he implies we should be, he would criticise us equally strongly. The report is clear and honest, and I have been as straightforward as possible in explaining the costs.
	The House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords House Committee will oversee the implementation of the project and monitor expenditure and management closely. I emphasise that the Government regard the reception building very much as the first stage. We hope that we will be able to build consensus on proposals for a proper visitor and education centre, with space for exhibitions interpreting our work, for the reception of school parties, and perhaps for a book and souvenir shop. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, our education unit does great work, but its facilities and resources are extremely limited. I believe strongly that we must do more to welcome and inform the electors of tomorrow. I accept that it may be difficult to find space for those facilities within the confines of the Palace, but I hope that the House authorities will press ahead with an exploration of options nearby.

Stephen Pound: I would be more persuaded to support the proposal if I thought that the statue of the butcher of Drogheda would be moved. Will it remain or will we hopefully lose it as a result of the proposal?

Phil Woolas: It is not within my power or ability to rewrite history. My hon. Friend's interpretation is colourful, but the Chairman of the House of Commons Advisory Committee on Works of Art, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), would have something to say about his proposal. Instinct and common sense tell me to duck the question and move swiftly on.

Stephen Pound: Is that a maybe?

Phil Woolas: I am not saying, and I do not know.

Andrew Robathan: rose

Phil Woolas: Does the hon. Gentleman want to give me a history lesson?

Andrew Robathan: As this is a special site listed by UNESCO, I do not think that we would be allowed to move the statue without the permission of the United Nations.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman will be complaining about outside interference in the sovereignty of the House next.
	I emphasise that the welcome we give our visitors is an important part of the way in which we engage with the public, but it is only a small part. We need to improve the way in which we engage with the majority of our constituents who never visit us in the Palace of Westminster, perhaps because, as in the case of my constituency, they live some distance away. The way in which our proceedings are broadcast and portrayed by the media, our website and the innovative use of new technologies are extremely important as well. The Modernisation Committee is addressing those wider issues, and I look forward with interest to its findings. We must accept that plans for the next stagefor a proper visitor and education centrewill take some time to develop. Our visitors deserve the best service we can give them. I commend the motion to the House.

Oliver Heald: I stress, as I did in the previous debate, that the matter before us is for Memberscertainly for those on the Opposition Benchesto determine on a free vote. The fact that I am giving a view from the Dispatch Box does not mean that I expect my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby, should we end up there tonight.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so soon. I should make it clear, in case he did not realise it, that the Government Whips were drawing Members into the Lobby on the last vote.

Oliver Heald: You would probably complain, and rightly so, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were diverted back to our previous proceedings.
	I join in the thanks to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), and to the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), for their hard work as Chairmen of the Committees that produced this rare joint report.

Eric Forth: On that point, would my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Oliver Heald: If my right hon. Friend will give me a moment, I shall certainly allow him to intervene.

Eric Forth: Have all the time in the world.

Oliver Heald: I fully accept that I should give way.
	The visitor centre has been mentioned. It is the long-held ambition of some that there should be a fully interpretive visitor centre. The House of Commons Commission vetoed that idea, and the report does not include a visitor centre. Many of us believe that what we do in this place is already interpreted a good deal and that if we want to do something positive, we should encourage our constituents to attend and see the work that we do at first hand.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend was kind enough to comment on the work of the Committees and particularly of the Chairmen, one of whom, my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), is with us. Sadly, our other colleague is not present. Would it not be a good thing if we were able to carry the debate over rather than rush to a premature vote, not least in order that the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) could be with us and enlighten us further?

Oliver Heald: I have full confidence in my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to put the matter in its proper context and to make the relevant points. However, I agree that it is wrong for important debates to be unreasonably curtailed. If the debate needs longer than the time allowed tonight, I would not disagree that proper time should be given for our deliberations.
	Although the Deputy Leader of the House opened the debate by emphasising the importance of welcoming our visitors to Parliament, on which I entirely agree, there is an important security background to this debate, as well as to our earlier debate. The number of visitors to the House is high and rising, and the requirements for effective searching and screening are considerable. These factors have led to long queues in the rain for our visitors, which is not a good idea. In addition, we have had the problem of having to screen visitors outside in the sort of tents to which the hon. Gentleman referred, because St. Stephen's entrance is too narrow to accommodate more than two X-ray screening machines, and because there are times when it is right that the screening should take place outside the main building. One advantage of the proposal in the report is that a proper security screening building would be built, with three bays instead of two. That would allow a much quicker flow through, and such a building would be more suitable in security terms.

Andrew MacKinlay: Hon. Members seem to be talking in code. I realise that when we speak about security, we must be sensitive. Perhaps[Interruption.] The fact is that the MinisterI do not mean this criticallydid not answer my point. I would have hoped that somebody would at least pull me aside and tell me why a building of the sort that is proposed will be better in terms of the safety for our staff doing the screening. Allowance must be made for a building exploding outwards. Locating it in a trough could contribute to casualties. In other words, such a building is not the right one; the motive is correct, but the building may be wrong.

Oliver Heald: I have not been privy to the detailed security advice of which my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is no doubt aware in his position as Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee. All I know from my general knowledge is that screening buildings that are used for security purposes usually have thick walls either side and a fairly flimsy roof, as the normal purpose is to get the blast going upwards rather than outwards.
	The proposed building is a better security building in terms of screening. Directing members of the public through Westminster Hall rather than the narrow funnel of St. Stephen's entrance should mean that it is possible for long queues to dissipate more rapidly. Although some colleagues take the view that we have to be extremely careful about how we use Westminster HallI would certainly not wish it to be used inappropriatelywe should bear in mind its history as a building that has been used for the public. I gather that in the early days, one end was used as a court, where there was a throng of prosperous lawyers, and that the other end was a magnet for commerce where shops and trades flourished. That was in about 1340, when the Keeper of the Palace was entitled to rents from those setting up booths or carrying their wares. Pepys was a regular customer in the 17th century, and Betty Martin, a linen draper in the Hall, was one of his many mistresses. In 1666, there were 48 shops, each with a frontage of 8 ft, and all of them had to be removed for coronations, which was apparently very inconvenient. Clearly, we have to respect the dignity of the place, but if it can be put to a use that helps the public, that is a good thing.
	On costs, it is difficult to provide buildings in a setting that has been described as a heritage site for the United Nations, partly because they always need to be in keeping. A good job has been done in keeping the proposed building below the level of the wall so that it does not intrude into the architectural profile of the larger building. Furthermore, a security building of this sort is always expensive. My personal view is that the proposal is a moderate and proportional one that I support.

Derek Conway: I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to this evening's debate. I am conscious of the time and that many other honourable colleagues wish to participate.
	We are considering the joint report of the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works, which I am honoured to chair. I pass on to the House the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who is elsewhere on parliamentary duties. She has spent a lot of time working on this issue and would have liked to put her views directly to the House.
	Discussions and conclusions between all parties on my Committee continued in joint deliberations with the Select Committee on Administration, and I place on the record the thanks of my Committee to the Administration Committee's Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, for that Committee's swift and positive action in enabling this joint report to be placed before the House. The prompt, constructive and supportive response of their lordships' Committees is equally appreciated.
	The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) have most ably set out the background to the proposal. My Committee restricted its consideration to the format of the proposed building and its position, appearance and capability to function. I am sure that the House will have had an opportunity to read the fairly brief but pretty informative document that we produced. In particular, my Committee is concerned with section 4, which deals with the format of the new reception and security building. Right hon. and hon. Members who have genuine doubts about our report's recommendationsI accept that there are someshould cast their minds back to the marquee that recently adorned St. Stephen's entrance, which has been mentioned, serving as the security clearance point for the Palace. It was unsightly and unwelcoming, and it was not pleasant for staff to work in it, but sadly it was essential for a brief period.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I may not have an opportunity to put questions to other hon. Members later in this debate. Is it also true that we can dispense with the obtrusive, ugly, temporary building on Abingdon green, which is erected to process people for line of route tours during the summer? Am I not right in thinking that this limited proposal, which I accept, would dispose of the need for that temporary building?

Derek Conway: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer, because the matter falls within the purview of the Administration Committee, which deals with the line of route, rather than my Accommodation and Works Committee. The two buildings have separate functions, however, and the temporary monstrosity that is erected over the summer deals with general applicants for the line of route rather than with those who enter the House on business.
	Although my Accommodation and Works Committee wants to make visitors more welcome, it was not for us to second-guess the wisdom or otherwise gainsay the security advice offered to the House. Our remit concerned the positioning of the security clearance zone, and in a choice between that awful tent in front of St. Stephen's entrance and the proposals before the House tonight, the proposals are self-evidently preferable. The land gradients on Cromwell green will enable the current aspect to remain, so the view of the Palace will not change substantially. The new building will not detract from the appearance of the gable end wall, because it will be below eyesight. The new building will be traditional in character and will be in keeping with the overall appearance of the Palaceother hon. Members have already made it clear that the Palace is a unique world heritage site.
	As to the new building's function, the long, ramped, undercover lead-in will considerably improve the manner in which queuing takes place. Remarkable progress has been made by the Palace authorities in the past few years to make visiting their lordships and hon. Members less of an initiative and endurance test.
	I have sat through the debates on this motion and on the previous motion, and I have discussed the matter in endless Committee meetings. Some hon. Members are concerned whether the House will be less welcoming to the public. I remember travelling on an overnight bus from Tyneside as an 11-year-old with my parents to come through the Palace on what was effectively a museum tour. When the IRA became active, security had to change, and, sadly, such issues keep changing, which is something that nobody likes or wants.
	The visitor centre will ensure not only that the security clearance procedure continues to be effective and becomes speedier because of the increased number of routes, but that those waiting to get in do not have stand outside in all the elements. I am fortunate enough to represent a seat that is a dozen miles from the House, but some hon. Members' constituents travel for four or five hours or more, disembark from coaches and stand around waiting for the line of route in our traditional and wonderful British weather. Making this place more accessible and friendly will ease that process.

Bob Spink: Has my hon. Friend addressed the question of the drop-off points for coaches? At the moment, people are dropped off just to the west of Victoria Tower before entering Victoria Tower, but under the proposal, they must walk even further to St. Stephen's entrance, which is a point that must be addressed.

Derek Conway: The Administration Committee does not intend to change the line of route, and tourists who come to the Palace, particularly during the summer recess, will find that it has not altered. The new building is for those who visit to see Committees of the House, the Chamber and Members of Parliament themselves. The House may change the line of route in future after consultation with their lordships. Such matters develop, and the Minister has made it clear that the proposals before the House are not the end of the storyeveryone wants access to this place to be easier and more understandable.
	I want to record the thanks of the Administration Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee to the Officers of the House, our external advisers and our Clerk for the quality of their guidance. A great deal of effort has been put into this project by a small group of experienced officials, and I hope that they accept our appreciation.
	This is not the end of the changes that our evolving institution will face. As merely its current guardians, we act not only with caution and great care in our duty to preserve its historical character, but with the responsibility of being an accessible working centre for democracy. I therefore urge the House to endorse our joint report.

Tony Banks: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Conway), who is a very distinguished Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee.
	I apologise to my rather sensitive hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for talking through parts of his comments, but I was merely imparting information. I assure him that he can amiably chat, or indeed break wind, throughout the course of my speech, and I will take no offence whatever.
	I very much welcome the report. As the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup reminded us, it has taken us years even to refer to those who come here as visitors rather than strangers. When I was first elected in 1983, I was appalled by the way in which we treated our visitors, who were kept outside in long queues in inclement weather. Despite the fact that everyone in the House expressed concern about it, nothing was ever done, so it is about time that it was. It is a pleasure to see that we have very much changed our attitude towards those who come here.
	The business of Parliament is not something to be done behind closed doors nor, in my opinion, behind glass screens. We must welcome visitors who come here, and encourage others to do sonot to gawp at us, but better to understand how the place works. I sat through the previous debate behind that screen. There is a good view, but it is a bit like sitting behind a pillar at a football ground and being unable to see what is happening on the pitch. I understand that the permanent screen is to be somewhat more attractive.
	During that debate, many hon. Members referred to this place as the mother of Parliaments. This might sound like nitpicking, but originally it was England, not this place, that was described as the mother of Parliaments. Parliament is an important place, howevernot because it is full of MPs, although there are not many of us around tonight, but because it is so central to our democracy. For too long, we have allowed the sneerers, the cynics and the ignorant to belittle this place. The development of democracy in this country is an inspirational story that is by no means complete. However, we cannot just rest on that statement. We need to help people to understand the development of this institution and our history better, and history has to be taughtone cannot simply absorb it by walking around. A visitor centre would be very much part of that teaching process.
	The report is a modest step in that direction. I speak as a member of the Accommodation and Works Committee and as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Works of Artthe two Committees are very much linked. I was encouraged by one of the conclusions in the report's summary:
	In considering these proposals, we recognise the demands for a large-scale interpretative visitor centre. We support this concept but believe that this is not feasible within the Palace of Westminster, and therefore recommend that suitable accommodation outside the building be sought.
	That chimes with a proposal that I made to the Works of Art Committee in a position paper in January 2001. I recommended that we should establish a museum of political democracy in the vicinity of Parliament. Such a museum or centre should be purpose-built and adjacent to the Palace: I thought that at the end of the building by the House of Lords and Embankment gardens would be ideal. It should tell the story of how our democracy has developed and how all the individuals and movements insideand, more significantly, outsidethis place have shaped our history over the centuries. The Committee accepted my proposal, and it went to the House of Commons Commission. There is some sympathy for it. It is a long-term project, but entirely appropriate to teaching people our history. We have a great story to tellwe should be proud of it and do far more to encourage people to understand it.

Mark Lazarowicz: Given how long a project that is described as short term takes to come to fruition in this place, I am worried about the description of the proposal as long term. Will my hon. Friend give some idea of the time scale for the completion of such a long-term project? The celebration of the institution's third centenary in three years might be an appropriate time to ensure that we have such a centre.

Tony Banks: The proposal that I put to the Committee would probably take 10 years, because it is for a purpose-built building in Embankment gardens. One can envisage all sorts of problems with that, but there is no reason not to think big. At times, this country's approach is small-minded and we are mean about funding. We are always trying to find someone else to fund projects. I have spoken to potential donors to such a museum and centre. If we are not prepared to pay for the construction of a museum or centre out of Government taxation, I know that many people in the outside world would be delighted to be associatedand have their money associatedwith it.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again and clarifying the proposals. I misread the report and believed that the proposed centre outside the building would be an interim facility until we had a visitor centre inside. If it is envisaged that such a visitor and interpretative centre would not be constructed for some years, is there not merit in providing some temporary centre near the House? The Scottish Parliament is an example of a short-term project that is taking a long time, but there is an excellent visitor centre in its temporary facilities. Could not such a facility be established? I do not believe that the proposal provides for it.

Tony Banks: Well, it does. If my hon. Friend reads the summary, which is short, it states that the report recommends a temporary facility. I do not know how long temporary is. Perhaps it will be like the screen and remain for many years. The report provides for a temporary solution. I took the point slightly further because the report also mentions a large-scale interpretative visitor centre, for which the proposal does not provide. I believe that it should be our long-term objective and I proposed it previously. We are in a working building, not an arts centre, museum or gallery. However, we are surrounded by so many beautiful works of art that teach us our history that we should do more to bring them to people's attention. We can do that in the context of the current proposals, but we can also have long-term plans.
	I am delighted that the report highlights the central role of Westminster Hall, which is the architectural gem of the Palaceindeed, it is one of the architectural gems of northern Europe. I found the attitude in the report of English Heritage to Westminster Hall annoying. I should like us to make available reproductions of the paintings, the sculpture and the literature in this place. We are desperately short of facilities. The pathetic facility at the entrance to St. Stephen's Hall, which is often not even open, passes as our only centre where people can buy books, literature and souvenirs of this place. I mean no disrespect to those who run it because it is not their responsibility but ours. After all these years, that is all we can offer. We must be much grander in our thinking about providing the sort of things that we see in museums and art galleries, while bearing in mind the fact that, although we have many works of art, the building is not a museum and art gallery.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman is right to describe Westminster Hall as an architectural gem. How will it be enhanced by a new, demountable, glazed lobby at its north entrance?

Tony Banks: That is the point! Westminster Hall is an architectural gem, but it has to be used. It was constructed not as an empty space for people to wander round and gawp at, but as a working building. Indeed, the High Court was still in Westminster Hall until the latter part of the 19th century. If the hon. Gentleman reads Pepys's diaries, he will realise that Westminster Hall was in many respects the centre of economic activityand certainly of social lifein London. Pepys used to buy his shirts and collars there. He used to drink his coffee there. He used to buy food there

Stephen Pound: I believe that that is not the only sort of purchase he made.

Tony Banks: He probably did that as well. There is an amazing story in his diaries of a naked man running through Westminster Hall, which would no doubt excite some Members, although not me.
	Westminster Hall was a working building. For English Heritage to say, You can't sell things there. You can't put sympathetic structures in there to retail the things that you want to sell is pathetic. English Heritage is there not to ossify structures but to protect them. We are reclaiming Westminster Hall for its historic purpose. That is the lesson that I would like to put to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I am grateful that he asked me that question, although I am not grateful for the way in which he has worked me up into responding as I did. It is bad for the old ticker at my age. The report talks about proposed considerable refurbishment of Westminster Hall in 2006, and the visitor centre will add to that work in 2005.
	We do not often get the opportunity to discuss the Advisory Committee on Works of Art. The Vice-Chairman is in his place today, and I am grateful for his support. It is good to have the opportunity to mention some of the things that we do. I hope that people appreciate the labels that now help them to learn something about the figures that grace our halls and rooms; there are no longer just anonymous statues or pictures on walls. We have rehung the whole of the Committee Corridor with portraits of Prime Ministers, making it a kind of constitutional corridor. I hope that Members will appreciate the next innovation, which will be to name the Committee Rooms after some of our great, distinguished statesmen.

Bob Spink: rose

Tony Banks: I give way to one of our incipient statesmen.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when Mrs. Thatcher's statue will be going up?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is quite covered by the subject that we are discussing.

Tony Banks: I could tell the hon. Gentleman, but I am not going to. It is a state secret.

Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that consideration has been given to putting Lady Thatcher's statue in the visitor centre?

Stephen Pound: That would cut down on the visitors.

Tony Banks: I cannot confirm that. I could make all sorts of little jokes about that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows

Stephen Pound: That is my job.

Tony Banks: But I shall leave it to my hon. Friend.
	No, that is not a proposal; it would inappropriate. The place for Baroness Thatcher will be in the Members' Lobby. I speak as someone who is no adoring sycophant, as some Conservative Members are in respect of Baroness Thatcher. They are happy to admit to it. The fact remains, however, that when all the narrow party-political issues have been forgotten, as they always will beand as we all will bethe one thing that will be remembered is that she was the first woman to be Prime Minister. That makes her unique, and no one can take that away from her. Her place will obviously be in the Members' Lobby, and I hope that that will happen fairly soon.
	I want to return to the point that I was making about Westminster Hall before I was sidetracked.

Andrew Robathan: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the beginning of his speech, but I was dying for a cup of tea. He has not mentioned, as he should, the fact that the area by Cromwell green, where it is proposed to build a visitor centre, is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. What does UNESCO say about this? Is it not a very important site?

Tony Banks: Of course it is, and these things have to be balanced. I want to finish my speech, because it would be selfish to talk right through to 6 o'clock, so I shall deal with the point quickly. Yes, it is a world heritage site. Therefore, to allow Parliament square to be inhabited by a permanent encampment is, in my opinion, wrong. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] No, hang on a minute! I am one of the people who voted against the Government on Iraq and I have no reason whatever to regret doing so. In fact, I am encouraged by the fact that events have subsequentlyalthough tragically, in many waysproved correct some of the points that I and others made. I did not want that to happen, but that is how it has turned out. I therefore support the stand of the gentleman who is encamped on Parliament square, but he is desecrating a world heritage site. By all means, let us protest, and walk past, but not set up a permanent site there. The Countryside Alliance also did that.
	We in this place do not have power over what goes on in an area that is clearly vital to the setting of the Palace. The Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee knows that I have proposed to his Committee, with the support of others, that we take powers over the whole of the environment of the Palace, including Parliament square and Abingdon green. We should take the decisions, because the peripheral area is crucial to an appreciation of the architectural and aesthetic significance of this site. I say that not because I oppose the political objectives of the guy in Parliament square, but because it does not do us any good, and it is about time that we took the power to do something about itif Westminster cannot or will not.
	Given the proposed refurbishment in Westminster Hall in 2006, and more of a problem in 2005 because of the temporary visitor centre, I want to put it on record that the Commission has agreed to a major exhibition in Westminster Hall to commemorate the abolition of slavery. I would not want that to be lost. The proposition is expensive and taking a lot of time to get together, but it will be a tragedy if we find that we cannot get access to Westminster Hall. The exhibition will be in conjunction with the national maritime museum. I hope that the Government will take that into account, and I know that the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee will do so. With that caveat, I very much welcome the report.

Paul Tyler: Briefly, I want to make one supportive comment on the report and one cautionary comment.
	The supportive comment is that it is about time that we understood that people come into this building for two quite different purposes. The extent to which we can signpost people in a sensible pro-active way in relation to those different purposes is important. I respect the work done by the Accommodation and Works Committee; this is a fascinating, mock-Gothic Victorian building. It is also an art gallery of some distinction. Yes, there are people who want to come to see a bit of history. Great! We ought to make it as easy as possible for them to do so. A far more important objective is to make the building more visible, transparent and open to people who want to see their representatives in a working parliamentary democracy. The report helps us in that. It is important that people are able to come into the building and know which way they are going, and it co-ordinates the response that we have been seeking from the Modernisation Committee in relation to those two specific purposes, which are quite different.
	My cautionary comment is about the extent to which we are going far beyond the present proposal with the suggestion of a visitor centre, which has just been mentioned. I have huge misgivings about that, not just on cost and time grounds and in terms of impact on the architectural environmentI worked in an architect's office and for the Royal Institute of British Architects for some years. Incidentally, I am also said to be a direct descendant of Oliver Cromwell, and I very much deprecated the comments about my ancestor.
	This is the important point: we should try to look forward, but it would be a far better investment of limited resources to make sure that everybody in the country has electronic access to the work of Parliament. It is not an either/or situation, but it should be seen in terms of priority. My constituents in Cornwall, if they are lucky in their schooldays, may make a brief visit to the Houses of Parliament, but that will not be anything like as useful to them as making sure that electronic access to the work of this place is improved, which we can do much more quickly. I recommend strongly to the Deputy Leader of the House and the Government that we give priority to that, and that we do not worry too much about these extravagant, long-term plans for a visitor centre.

Andrew MacKinlay: Bearing in mind that we have only a few seconds left, I want to say that Westminster Hall is delightful this afternoon. It is uncluttered, and darkness is its greatest beautythe proposed enhanced lighting will not improve it at all. I leave that thought with the House, and if there is a future debate
	It being Six o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITION
	  
	Empty Houses

Kerry Pollard: I have a petition from Colin Fairrie and others in my constituency about private empty houses that have been allowed to fall into disrepair because there has been no investment. It is having a detrimental effect on the value of houses and on the condition of the area. Moreover, it is outrageous that at a time of acute housing shortage in the south-east in general and my constituency in particular, houses should be left empty.
	The petition of Colin Fairrie and others asks the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to take positive action.
	To lie upon the Table.

ACUTE MENTAL HEALTH UNITS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Margaret Moran.]

Oliver Heald: I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me to discuss this subject.
	The concerns that I wish the Minister to address arise from the background to the tragic death of my young constituent, Tim Goff. Tim was 20 years old, a bright young man who had done well at Fearnhill school in Letchworth, in my constituency, and gone on to become a student at the university of East Anglia. At the beginning of September last year, Tim suffered his first serious episode of mental ill health, and was referred to the acute unit at Lister hospital in Stevenage. He was being kept under observation as a suicide risk. He died in the bathroom there, having hanged himself from a ligature point in the suspended ceiling. His parents were devastated. They are here today. I know that everyone will understand their sense of loss and their desire to ensure that this risk is dealt with to avoid such distress to other families. I hope that the Minister will join me in expressing condolences to the family.
	After the tragedy, Peter and Susan Goff looked into the safety issue. They discovered that in 2001 both the Northern Ireland Adverse Incident Centre and the NHS in Scotland Property and Environment Forum had issued a clear warning to all trusts in their area of the danger of suicide posed by ligature points covered by suspended ceilings in psychiatric units. The information on which the notices were based appears to have come from NHS Estates, as indicated in the 2001 NIAIC report, which stated:
	Following a number of reports received by NHS Estates concerning suicides and attempted suicides by hanging where access to a point of ligature has been gained by the removal of ceiling tiles from a suspended ceiling, NIAIC issued Safety Notice . . . alerting . . . organisations of the . . . risks.
	I understand that it is the statutory responsibility of the NHS Estates department to ensure that all alerts or warnings received from individual trusts or regions are passed on. I also understand that the warnings issued in Northern Ireland and Scotland were fully compliant with the procedure that requires information to be passed on to NHS Estates.
	It has been confirmed to the Goffs that no warning was issued in England. Peter Goff has explained his feelings to me as follows:
	In September 2003 my son died as a result of an incident involving a ligature point behind a suspended ceiling in the bathroom of a psychiatric unit, while supposedly on observation as a potential suicide risk. Both his family as active carers and staff in the unit . . . who had a formal duty of care for him, assumed the physical environment in the bathroom posed 'no known hazard' when in fact NHS Estates had been fully aware of the risk posed by suspended ceilings for over 2 years . . . and had the responsibility for informing English Health Trusts.
	He is particularly concerned that, despite representations, that still seems to be the case. On 1 March, the Goffs contacted me and wrote to NHS Estates in Leeds. I wrote to NHS Estates in Leeds, too. The reply to me of 9 March from the head of engineering, Mr. Kerr, said:
	it is not appropriate for us to send you a copy of our response.
	However, Mr. and Mrs. Goff did receive a reply, dated 9 March, which they immediately passed to me. In it, Mr. Kerr says:
	Our guidance makes it clear that each individual body is responsible for carrying out its own risk assessment and deciding what action it needs to take in the light of that assessment to minimise and . . . eliminate risk. Each trust has a responsibility for ensuring a safe environment.
	He goes on to quote guidance on suspended ceilings in medium secure psychiatric units dated 1993, but the unit that we are concerned about is not a medium secure unit; it is an acute unit. He then indicates that guidance will be issued to the NHS as quickly as possible.
	Not unnaturally, the Goffs were not satisfied with that because the letter contains no explanation of how Scotland and Northern Ireland issued safety notices in 2001 but England did not. In further correspondence, Mr. Kerr of NHS Estates has had to admit that the 1993 document to which he referred
	is not an appropriate reference document in this context;
	that the history was that, after receiving two reports of near misses, the Scottish authority issued a safety notice in June 2001 warning of the danger posed by ligature points under suspended ceilings; and that copies were sent to NHS Estates and to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, they acted immediately, issued a notice and copied in NHS Estates, so NHS Estates was sent notices from Scotland and from Northern Ireland that were not acted on. Mr. Kerr's response is:
	Scottish Healthcare Supplies advise us that they forwarded a copy of their notice . . . to NHS Estates. A search of NHS Estates records has not identified receipt of the notice.
	NHS Estates has no record of having received the NIAIC
	the Northern Ireland authority
	safety notice.
	In a later phone call, Mr. Goff was told that the two documents must have been lost in the post.
	The questions for the Minister are as follows. Has a safety warning notice yet been issued to all trusts in England? How was it that the organisation responsible thought that a 1993 document about a different kind of unit covered the point? Is she satisfied with the procedures that are in place within NHS Estates to log all incoming post and to ensure that it is forwarded promptly to the official for action?
	It seems that the Scottish and Northern Ireland notices would have been sent to the Medical Devices Agency of the NHS but that its procedure is that any notice that refers to a non-device matter is routinely destroyed. Is that a sensible policy? Would the Minister care to comment on that? Can she explain how the Scottish notice explains that it was
	following a number of reports received by NHS Estates
	that the Scottish notice was issued, whereas NHS Estates denies all knowledge of such incidents? Is she happy with the systems in place for the dissemination of best safety practice between acute mental health units in England? Will she instigate a full investigation into the issuing of safety notices and the procedures to be adopted, so that we can ensure that these problems are addressed?
	Finally, does the Minister understand that, for Mr. and Mrs. Goff, the key issue is to ensure as far as possible that others do not suffer such tragedy and that a first incident of serious mental ill health should not lead to a death?

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on securing the debate. He is absolutely right to raise in the House the tragic case of his constituent. I should like to offer my very sincere condolences to the family of Tim Goff who, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned today, died in hospital while an in-patient at Lister hospital in September last year. His family has my heartfelt sympathy.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Goff was admitted on 15 June last year as an informal mental health patient to the Lister hospital. On 6 September last year, tragically, he committed suicide. Let me emphasise that both the hospital and the Department of Health need to learn from serious incidents such as this.
	It might be helpful if I set out the actions carried out by Hertfordshire partnership trust since this tragic incident. There is a detailed protocol to be followed in the event of a serious incident, which initially requires a detailed local clinical review into the circumstances of the incident. This was carried out by Hertfordshire partnership trust and was completed on 15 October 2003. It recommended a higher level in-depth inquiry, so a panel review has been set up.
	The panel review, which is ongoing, includes an independent expert consultant psychiatrist, and has terms of reference that have been agreed between the trust and, I am assured, Tim Goff's parents. In particular the panel has been asked to identify lessons that could reduce any risk for patients in the care of the trust and to make recommendations about how that can be achieved.
	I am aware also that an inquest has been opened into Mr. Goff's death and has been adjourned while the coroner investigates further. In addition, Hertfordshire partnership trust has responded by undertaking a review of its own observation policy within the trust services and intends to implement the recommendations. All recommendations coming out of the inquiry and the inquest will be carefully considered to ensure that lessons are learned.
	The hon. Gentleman has referred to the issue regarding the alert notice sent out by Scotland and Northern Ireland in 2001 regarding suspended ceilings. This alert focused on suspended ceilings and ligature points and instructed chief executives to ensure that the alert was brought to the immediate attention of staff to take appropriate action to make safe unsupervised areas with such ceilings used by patients considered to be at high risk of suicide.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that NHS Estates believes that it did not receive the alert. Thanks to the work of Mr. and Mrs. Goff and the hon. Gentleman, NHS Estates has now been made aware of the alert and, on 18 March, the relevant alert was sent to trusts in England.
	Obviously, I want to make sure that best practice is disseminated between departments so that prompt action can be taken. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as a result of this incident we are reviewing the protocol to ensure that everything is being done so that when there are such alerts they are communicated as quickly as possible. That will mean that many of the questions that he has raisedsuch as why the incident happened and why the alert was not sent out immediatelycan be considered as part of the review of our protocols. In addition, as part of our consideration of how we can share best practice in the way that the hon. Gentleman discussed, NHS Estates will be part of a safety alert broadcast system throughout England, so that we can do everything that we can to promote safety throughout the health service.
	As part of our wider commitment to ensuring patient safety, we created the National Patient Safety Agency in July 2001 to enable us to co-ordinate the entire country's efforts in reporting and, more importantly, in learning from mistakes and problems that affect patient safety. The system that we had until recently was effective in making sure that local inquiries were carried out and local lessons learned, but we want to have a robust system that can ensure that when local inquiries have reported, their reports are gathered together at central level. We can then examine those incidents and send information from them back to local areas, ensuring that lessons are learned from incidents such as this one. Instead of lessons perhaps remaining at local level, we can then ensure that there is proper national consideration of what has happened.
	The National Patient Safety Agency has already identified patient safety in acute mental health settings as a priority area in its mental health programme. We will be launching a major initiative on that in May. Its aim will be to reduce the risk of suicide, self-harm, violence, aggression, racial harassment and abuse. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as part of that initiative we will certainly look at what can be learned from the incident that he has brought to our attention.
	The National Patient Safety Agency has also developed a national reporting and learning system to promote comprehensive national learning about safety incidents. That is part of the need that I mentioned earlier to provide a way of gathering information so that it can be put together centrally. We can then provide feedback on the services provided and identify the issues that need to be considered. Officials from the National Patient Safety Agency are meeting NHS Estates and other experts specifically to discuss ligature points.
	To ensure safety, it is obviously vital that in-patient units where the most vulnerable in our society are cared for are safe, therapeutic and supportive. That of course includes doing everything that we can to reduce the risk of suicide. We in the Department of Health strongly support the national confidential inquiry report into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness. That inquiry and its recommendations are crucial to gaining a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding suicide when people are under the care of our mental health services.
	The National Institute for Mental Health in England recently published an audit toolkit to help local services to measure progress in implementing the recommendations of the inquiry report. We also recognise the importance of the physical environment in providing psychiatric in-patient care, and we are committed to a programme of modernisation, backed up by substantial investment, so that we can improve psychiatric wards and in-patient care.
	However, there is no doubt that we need to do more to review the physical environment of in-patient settings, and to make the necessary changes in order to reduce access to the means of suicide, and to avoid tragedies such as the one we are debating today. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to make this a priority by looking at the physical environment and at the improvements that we need to make within psychiatric in-patient settings.
	It is very difficult to find the right words to give comfort in such tragic situations, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and Mr. and Mrs. Goff in particular will accept that I am very aware of all that they have done to ensure that we in the Department of Health are aware of what happened and can learn lessons from it.

Oliver Heald: It is clear that a lot of activity is going on that, one hopes, will lead to results. One concern is that the logging of the post coming into NHS Estates from Northern Ireland and Scotland seems not to have been effective in ensuring that the documents from the two authorities made their way to the relevant official, and that the safety notice was then issued. Will the office procedures of NHS Estates be improved? Such a reassurance would give us some comfort that if an incident in another part of the United Kingdom gives rise to concern in future, NHS Estates will know about it and be on to it, and action will be taken.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to look at the system for logging such information. As I said, we intend to examine the protocols for exchanging information, which will include considering how notes are logged, and ensuring that they are not destroyed if a time lapse occurs. The matter is under review, and I undertake to write to the hon. Gentlemanwho can in turn contact Mr. and Mrs. Goffabout the arrangements that we can set in train to ensure that such information is properly logged and passed on to the relevant person.
	I repeat my tribute to the work undertaken by Mr. and Mrs. Goff to ensure that we learn lessons from what has happened. I can assure them and the hon. Gentleman that I undertake to do all that I can to support their work, so that, as the hon. Gentleman said, we can avoid such tragedies in future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Six o'clock.